Karnataka High Court
The Dharwad Institute Of Medical vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
WA No. 100359 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100359 OF 2022 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.100280 OF 2022
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100359 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-530068.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
Digitally signed by
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-530068.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN ...APPELLANTS
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. DR. MEGHAMALA S.TAVARAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: C/O: SHIVKUMAR TAVARAGI,
JAYANAGAR, 2ND CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. THE DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, (DIMHANS)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
WA No. 100359 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN
W.P.NO.105429/2021 DATED 18.04.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
RELIEF'S AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE AND IN AID OF THE MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100280 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, (DIMHANS)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-530068.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
WA No. 100359 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022
HC-KAR
OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURE-530068.
3. DR. MEGHAMALA S.TAVARAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O: C/O: SHIVKUMAR TAVARAGI,
JAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE MADE IN W.P.
NO.105429/2021 DATED 18.04.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF'S
AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
AND IN AID OF THE MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
WA No. 100359 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) These intra Court writ appeals are filed at the hands of the State Government represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned single judge in W.P.No.105429/2021 dated 18.04.2022.
2. The writ petition was filed at the hands of the respondents seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to quantify and to pay the allowances that the writ petitioner was entitled during her period of deputation for taking up PG-CET examination and to declare that Form No.-19 which was executed by the writ petitioner on 06.06.2016 at Annexure-'C' is illegal and the said undertaking is not binding on the petitioner. The learned singe judge held that the undertaking given by the writ petitioner was a bond to the effect that in the event petitioner failed to return to the institute after acquiring -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR higher qualifications to serve the institution for a period of ten years, the petitioner would be liable to pay the Government a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The learned single judge held that the condition imposed by the Director of Medical Education in his order granting permission to the writ petitioner to go on deputation to write and complete the PG- CET examination with a condition that the petitioner will not be entitled for pay and allowances during the period of her deputation, is a condition which could not be imposed by the director.
3. Learned AGA submits that when once the petitioner has given an undertaking in Form No.-19 and having accepted the order passed by the Director, DIMHANS, where it is clearly stated that petitioner will not be entitled for payment of allowances, such a writ petition could not have been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai appearing for respondent No.2 would support the submission made by the learned AGA.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. We have heard the learned AGA, learned counsel for the appellant-institution and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the appeal memo.
6. What is required to be noticed is the relevant provision of Karnataka Civil Services Rules viz., Rule-61 of the KCSR and Appendix-A of the KCSR. Rule 61(3) provides that the deputation or grant of study leave to government servants for higher studies or specialized training shall be regulated in accordance with Appendix-II-A. Further, Clause- 8 of Appendix-A provides that during the period of deputation, the candidate shall be eligible to draw salary i.e. basic pay, DA, House Rent Allowances and City Compensatory allowance which he would have drawn but for her deputation for higher studies or specialized training. However, it also provides that during the period of extension, the Government Servant is eligible for leave salary only, as provided under the Rules.
7. On facts, it is not disputed that on 08.06.2016, the petitioner was relived from duty, having executed Form -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR No.-19 and it is also not disputed that the petitioner after completing her post graduation in MD(Psychiatry) was relieved from KIMS Educational Institution, Hubballi and was directed to report to DIMHANS. After reporting for duty at DIMHANS, the petitioner gave a representation seeking payment of salary and other service benefits through her representation dated 31.10.2018. When no orders were passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.113383/2019 and the learned single judge disposed of the writ petition on 20.08.2020 directing the Director of DIMHANS to consider the representation dated 31.10.2018 given by the writ petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the said directions, the Director, DIMHANS passed the impugned order at Annexure-'R' dated 20.08.2020 / 08.11.2020 holding that the writ petitioner is not entitled for the pay and allowance in view of the undertaking given by the writ petitioner.
8. The main contention of the learned AGA and learned counsel for the appellant-institution is that for the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR purpose of being qualified to take up the PG-CET examination, the writ petitioner was required to have five years of qualifying service which admittedly, the writ petitioner did not have. The writ petitioner had only three years of qualifying service and therefore, she was not entitled to take up PG-CET examination as a in-service candidate. However, by relaxing the requirement of five years to three years, the writ petitioner was permitted to take up the examination that is the reason why such a condition was imposed by the Director, DIMHANS while granting permission to the writ petitioner to take up PG-CET examination.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a condition could not have been imposed by the Director, DIMHANS while granting permission firstly, since, such condition would be contrary to the provision of the rules and secondly, the undertaking given by the writ petitioner in the Form No.19 is as per the prescribed format. There are two contingencies quoted in the format. The first contingency is whether the candidate though clears the examination does -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR not report back to the institution under such circumstances, the candidate is required to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the institution. The second contingency is where the candidate does not complete the examination and acquire higher qualification within the period stipulated. Under the second circumstances, the Form No.19 prescribes that the candidate shall repay the allowances which the candidate secured during the said period. We find from the undertaking given by the respondent, that the same is not in the prescribed format-Form No.19. The charges made, not being in accordance with the format, the undertaking obtained from the respondent is illegal. Further, having regard to the undisputed facts neither of the two contingencies would apply in the case of the writ petitioner. It is not disputed that after the writ petitioner cleared the examination, the writ petitioner came back to the institution and joined the service immediately after being relived by the KIMS Education institution where writ petitioner took up PG- CET examination. The learned single judge is therefore right in holding that such a condition could not have been imposed
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB WA No. 100359 of 2022 C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022 HC-KAR by the Director, DIMHANS while granting permission to the writ petitioner to go on deputation for higher studies.
10. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned single judge.
11. Consequently, we are proceeded to dismiss both the writ appeals.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE HMB CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33