Karnataka High Court
Dr. S. Balu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 39853 OF 2016 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dr.S.Balu,
S/o Late R.Sadasivan,
Aged 53 years
Working as Associate Professor
(Pathology Division),
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road
Bangalore-560029 ...Petitioner
(By Sri L.Mahesh Adv., for Sri.Ranganatha S.Jois
Advocate )
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare Services
(Medical Education)
M.S.Building,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru-560 029
Rep. by its Director.
3. Dr. C.S.Premalatha
Professor (Pathology division)
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology
2
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru-560 029.
4. Dr.C.Ramachandra,
Professor of Surgery
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru-560 029.
5. Dr. Rekha V.Kumar,
Professor (Pathology)
Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology
Dr.M.H.Marigowda Road,
Bengaluru-560 029. ... Respondents
(By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, AAG along with Sri E.S.Indiresh
AGA for R1;
Sri Aravind V.Chavan, Advocate for R2;
Sri M.R.Shailendra, Advocate for R3 and R5;
Sri Reuben Jacob, Advocate for R4)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for
records relating to the order of promotion/endorsement
dated 14.07.2016 vide annexure-P, vide annexure-M
dated 15.06.2013 and dated 11.04.2016 vide annexure-
Q, all passed by R-2, peruse and quash the said orders
as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and violative of
Article14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondents.
3
2. The petitioner is before this Court impugning the order upgrading the post held by the respondents No.3, 4 and 5, whereby the respondents, who were earlier designated as Associate Professor, have now been upgraded to the post of Professor. It is his grievance that though the petitioner is senior to the respondents No.3 *and 4(*), his seniority has been ignored and his juniors in the Department of Pathology have been promoted as Professor.
3. The respondent No.4 has preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC, praying that, his name be deleted from the array of parties as he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.
4. The said application was vehemently opposed by the counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is seen that the respondent No.4 hails from the Department of Surgery whereas the respondents No.3 and 5 are from the Department of *Inserted and deleted vide Court Order dated: 1.9.2017 4 Pathology, and it is vide Annexure-M, that the respondent No.4 has been promoted to the post of Professor. It is not in the dispute that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 belong to different Department and seniority is as per the appointment in the said Department. It is the claim of the petitioner that though he was appointed five years prior to the date of appointment of the respondent No.4, his case has been ignored and the respondents 1 and 2 have unjustly discriminated against him causing grave injustice in the matter of promotion.
6. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner that his case has been overlooked in order to favour the respondent No.4 for the post of Director is baseless. It is not in dispute that as on today, neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 are qualified to be appointed as Director. It is not in dispute that even respondent No.4 has not put in five years of service as a Professor in Oncology, Cancer Institute. Hence, the submission made by the petitioner 5 that it has been done to groom him for the said post is far fetched. The method of recruitment stipulated is by direct recruitment by the Government of Karnataka and terms and conditions of office may be determined by the Government. Hence, the writ petition, in so far as it relates to Annexure-M, requires to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. The apprehension of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is being favoured is without basis and is speculative and not supported by reasons.
7. It is not in dispute that respondents No.3 *is his junior in the Department of Pathology, but *has been promoted to the post of Professor vide *Annexure-A. The learned counsels after making submissions for some time submit that the writ petition could be disposed off by directing respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
8. The submission of the counsels is placed on record.
*deleted and corrected vide Court Order dated: 1.9.2017 6
9. The writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor, Department of Pathology. The respondents No.1 and 2 shall complete the exercise within a period of two months from today.
10. Petitioner is also directed to file additional representation, if he so desires, within a period of one week. If such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same along with the representations dated 10.12.2014, 22.4.2015 and 29.05.2015, said to have also been filed earlier by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and forward the same to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall further, within a period of four weeks, consider and dispose off the proposal forwarded by respondent No.2.
Writ Petition stands disposed off in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ag/rs