Karnataka High Court
Dr Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION.Nos.15807-15810/2012 (EDN-RES)
AND WP Nos.15811-15812/2012
AND W.P.Nos.15813-15816/2012
C/w W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012,
15417/2012 AND 15636-664/2012,
14430/2012, 16337-16349/2012
W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012
AND WP.Nos.15811-15812/12,
AND WP Nos.15813-15816/12:
BETWEEN:
1. Dr.Siddappa,
S/o.Balappa Naik,
Aged about 37 years,
Occ: Medical Officer,
20 Bedded Hospital,
Government Hospital,
Ramanagar, Joida Taluk,
Uttara Kannada District.
2. Dr.Somashekara Kabbera,
S/o.K.Lingappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Munirabad,
Koppal District.
3. Mrs. Geetha S.M.
W/o. Mahadev,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Dommasandra, Tk: Anekal,
District: Bangalore Urban.
4. Dr.Guruswamy,
S/o.Late Thippeswamy,
Aged about 39 years,
2
Working as Medial Officer,
CHC Ujjini, Tk: Kudligi,
District: Bellary.
5. Dr.Giridhar,
S/o.A.Shantamurthy,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital,
Jagalur, Tk: Jagalur,
District: Davanagere.
6. Dr.Ramesh,
S/o.Vittal Rao,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dommasandra,
Tk: Anekal, Dist: Bangalore Urban.
7. Dr.Sharangouda Patil,
S/o.Chandrashekar Patil,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital,
Devadurga, Raichur District.
8. Dr.Shashidhar,
S/o.A.P.Rajashekara,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Daginakatte,
Davanagere District.
9. Dr.Chikkareddy M.L.
S/o.Lakshmappa,
Aged about 38 year,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Hudli, Tk & Dt.Belgaum.
10. Dr.Arun,
S/o.Dakshinamurthy,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Vemgal, Tk & Dt.Kolar. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for
Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate)
3
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Vikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner,
Health and Family Welfare Services,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009,
Bangalore.
3. The Director of Health and Family
Welfare, Directorate of Health and
Family Welfare Services,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009,
Bangalore.
4. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences, 4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 41,
Represented by its
Registrar, Bangalore. ... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and
Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3,
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
Circular, dated 16.05.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and
produced as Annexure-Q and etc.
W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. Dr.B.M.Shivaswamy,
S/o.B.S.Mariswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
At PHC, Byramangala,
Ramanagara Tq.
Ramanagar District.
4
2. Dr.Venugopal S.
S/o.L.Sidde Gowda,
Aged about 40 years,
At LH Hospital,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore. ...Petitioners
(By Sriyuths Siddappa, Sunil and Nitin, Advocates)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner,
Health and Family Welfare,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009,
Bangalore.
3. The Director of Health and Family
Welfare, Directorate of Health and
Family Welfare,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009,
Bangalore.
4. The Registrar,
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences, 4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 41. ... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and
Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3,
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government
Gazette Notification dated 21.02.2012 vide Annexure-B and
set aside all consequential actions initiated pursuant to
Annexure-B, and etc.
5
W.P.Nos.15417/2012 AND 15636-15664/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. Dr.Sonia J.V.
Aged about 39 years,
W/o.Manjunath,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC-Banawadi, Magadi Tq.,
Ramanagar District - 562 112.
2. Dr.Lohitha H.M.
Aged about 43 years,
S/o.Maheshwarappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
District Hospital,
Chikkamagalur
Chikkamagalur District-577 101.
3. Dr.Mallikarjuna,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o.S.S.Kuba Kaddi,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC - Tavaragera,
Kushtagi Tq.
Koppal District- 584 121.
4. Dr.Sharanamma Patil,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o.Gurulingappa Patil,
Working as Medical Officer,
Urban Health Centre (IPP)
Heerapura, Gulbarga - 585 101.
5. Dr.Sanjeev Kumar,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o.Balagi Singh,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Kavalur,
Yadgiri Tq. & District - 585 201.
6. Dr.Vasanth Kumar L.M.
Aged about 37 years,
S/o.L.S.Muniyappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC - Arikera,
Yadgiri Tq. & District - 585 201.
6
7. Dr.B.Srinivasa,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o.Beerappa D.
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kannalli,
Bangalore Urban - 560 035.
8. Dr.Divya Kumari C.T.,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o.Dr.Nagesh K.R.,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kanchanahalli
Hassan Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
9. Dr.Suma S.R.
Aged about 40 years,
W/o.Ramesh R.,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Hosadurga,
Hosadurga Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 527.
10. Dr.A.R.Nirmala,
Aged about 39 years,
W/o.Srikanth A.N.,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Koneghatta,
Doddaballapura Tq.
Bangalore Rural District - 561 203.
11. Dr.Vrunda Prabhu K.M.,
Aged about 41 years,
D/o.Mohan Prabhu,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Mallandaru,
Chikkamagalore District 577 101.
12. Dr.Raju B.,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o.Basavegowda,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH - Hunasuru
Hunasuru Tq.
Mysore District - 571 105.
7
13. Dr.Srinivas R.,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o.Rudramuni K.,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC- Boliyaru,
D.K.District - 575 003.
14. Dr.Sathyanarayan R.
Aged about 41 years,
S/o. Rangegowda
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Maduvalahippe,
H.N.Pura, Hassan District-573 201.
15. Dr.Suresh Kumar H.M,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o.H.Mariyappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Manne,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural - 562 123.
16. Dr.Geetha Priya P.,
Aged about 37 years,
W/o.Subindh,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC - K.M.Doddi,
Maddur Tq.
Mandya District - 571 428.
17. Dr.Jayanthi R.,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o.Devadass R,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Siddaganga Matha,
Tumkur Tq, Tumkur Dist-572 101.
18. Dr.Mahadeva Nayaka.,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o.Gopala Nayaka,
Working as District Surv.Officer,
DSO - Chamarajanagar,
Chamarajanagar Tq. District - 571 313.
19. Dr.G.S.Sridhar.,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o.G.T.Subbe Gowda,
8
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC - Udaya Pura
CR Patna Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
20. Dr.H.K.Ramesh
Aged about 38 years,
S/o.Kenchappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Kodihalli
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District - 562 112.
21. Dr.Sathish M.K,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o.Kenchappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
M.S.D.M. Hospital Koppa
Chikkamagalore District - 577 101.
22. Dr.Geetha K.B,
Aged about 48 years,
W/o.Manju Prakash,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Laggere
Bangalore North Tq.,
Bangalore Urban Dist-560 058.
23. Dr.Nagappa G.S,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o.Shivanna,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Rayakoppalu,
Alur Tq, Hassan Dist-573 201.
24. Dr.D.N.Nagalakshmi,
Aged about 40 years,
w/o.Srikanth P.C.,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Kowshika,
Hassan Tq.
Hassan District - 573201.
25. Dr.Brahmendra M,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o.M.Mariswamy,
Working as Medical Officer,
9
District Hospital
Chamaraja Nagar,
Chamaraja Nagar District - 571 313.
26. Dr.Praveen Kumar C.H,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o.Raghuveer C.H.,
Working as District Family
Welfare Officer,
DHO Office,
Bangalore Rural - 560 001.
27. Dr.Chennakeshava S.P,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o.Late Pappa Settappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Thovinakere,
Koratagere Tq.
Tumkur District - 571 428.
28. Dr.G.R.Ramesh,
Aged about 43 years,
S/o.Ramakrishnayya,
Working as Medical Officer,
Addl. District TB Centre,
Sira, Sira Tq.
Tumkur District - 571 428.
29. Dr.Sakharam Shetty,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o.Shankar Shetty,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Belawadi,
Chikkamagalur Tq. & District - 577 101.
30. Dr.C.Suvarna.,
Aged about 44 years,
S/o.P.B.Prakash,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Kudlapura,
Nanjangud Taluk,
Mysore District - 571 301. ...Petitioners
(By Sri Madhusudhan R.Naik, Senior Advocate
for Sri Reuben Jacob, Advocate)
10
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Vikasa Soudha,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001,
Represented by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Health and Family Welfare Services,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Director of Health and Family
Welfare, Directorate of Health and
Family Welfare Services,
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health
Sciences, 4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 41,
Represented by its Registrar.
5. Dr.Sreeram C.J.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Ramagiri, Holalkere Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
6. Dr.Sudeep Kumar H.C.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Chikkajogihalli,
Shikaripura Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 427.
7. Dr.Arathi M.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Muddapura
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
11
8. Dr.Mahendra A.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Shettikere,
C.N.Halli Tq.
Tumkur District - 571 428.
9. Dr.Sirdhar D.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Kushalanagar,
Coorg District - 571 234.
10. Dr.Ananda Manohara Zulki.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk Hospital,
Basavanabagewadi Tq.
Bijapura District - 586 203.
11. Dr.Manjunatha H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC D.S.Halli (Dodda Siddavanahalli)
Chitradurga Tq. & District - 577 501.
12. Dr.Venugopal K.J.
S/o.Late K.M.Javaraiah,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Urban Health Centre (IPP-8)
Nehrunagar, Bhadravathi Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 301.
13. Dr.Gurumurthy H.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Sakarayapatana,
Kadur Tq.
Chikmagalur Dist - 577 548.
12
14. Dr.Geetha V.Kinagi.
W/o.Dr.Srinivas Reddy Patil
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk Hospital, Sedam,
Gulbarga District - 585 222.
15. Dr.Shashidhar D.K.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Shanthigram,
Hassan Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
16. Dr.Suresh K.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Rangapura
Tiptur Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 201.
17. Dr.Girish Kumar M.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Aradeshana Halli
Devanahalli Tq.
Bangalore Rural District - 562 110.
18. Dr.Hanumantharaju C.M.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Namagondlu,
Gouribidanur Tq.
Chikaballapur District - 562 101.
19. Dr.Venu Gopal N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Legislature Home Dispensary.
Bangalore - 01.
13
20. Dr.Sathish Gangappa Kabade,.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Telsang, Athani Tq.
Belgaum District - 591 304.
21. Dr.Balachandra D.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dasanakoppa, Sirsi Tq.
North Kanara District - 581 401.
22. Dr.Rajesh B.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk General Hospital
Hagarabombanahalli,
H.B.Halli Tq.
Bellary District - 583 212.
23. Dr.Jagadesh K.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dandinashivara,
Turuvekere Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 227.
24. Dr.Marula Siddappa P.M.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Malebennur,
Malebennur Tq.
Davanagere District- 577 530.
25. Dr.Kusuma
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Rajendranagar,
Mysore District - 570 001.
14
26. Dr.Rajendra
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 47 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Maravalli, Shikaripura Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 427.
27. Dr.Girish P.B.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kalgere,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
28. Dr.Shivana Gouda Patil
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Huligeri, Kushtagi Tq.
Koppal District - 584 121.
29. Dr.Kumaraswamy M.Yettinamath,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Asundi, Soundatti Tq.
Belgaum District - 590 001.
30. Dr.Mohan Kumar C.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Sringeri,
Chikmagalur District - 577 139.
31. Dr.Omprakash Ashok Ambure.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Petammapur, Surapura Tq.
Yadgiri District - 588 201.
32. Dr.Venu Gopal K.L.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Pandomatti, Channagere Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 213.
15
33. Dr.Mohan S.J.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mydolalau, Bhadravathi Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 301.
34. Dr.Jafar Sadik Faqirudin Sayed
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kanamadi
Bijapur District - 586 101.
35. Dr.Malkajayya
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk General Hospital,
Sindhanur, Shindhanur Tq.
Raichur District - 573 201.
36. Dr.Kiran Kumar B.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Hirisave, C.R.Patna Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
37. Dr.Shammi H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Halekote,
H.N.Pura Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
38. Dr.Sharana Basava
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Andola, Jewargi Tq.
Gulbarga District - 585 310.
39. Dr.Banadeshwara (Basaveshwara)
Gobbur, S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
16
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Koppar, Devadurga Tq.
Raichur District - 584 101.
40. Dr.Manjunath S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Alakapura,
Gowribidanur Tq.
Chikkaballapura District - 562 101.
41. Dr.Sanganna L.Lakkannavar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
District Survelliance Officer,
Bijapur - 586 101.
42. Dr.T.L.N.Kumari
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Tiptur, Gubbi Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 216.
43. Dr.Anil Kumar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Gunjahalli,
Raichur Tq.
Raichur District - 584 101.
44. Dr.Gopal Govinda Haragi
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC - Korlkai,
Siddapura Tq.
Uttara Kannada District - 581 355.
45. Dr.Mohankumar S.K.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 45 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Ranganathapura
17
Hiriyur Tq.
Chitradurga District - 572 143.
46. Dr.Mahesh B.More
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Musturu,
Gangavathi Tq.
Koppal District - 583 227.
47. Dr.Sathish Babu R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kaggalada Hundi,
Gundlupet Tq.
Chamarajanagar District - 571 111.
48. Dr.Shashanka S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Taggikuppe, Magadi Tq.
Ramanagara District - 562 120.
49. Dr.Hanuma Raddi Giradi L.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk Hospital, Ron,
Gadag District - 582 101.
50. Dr.Mohan Kumar G.M.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kulambi, Honnali Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 217.
51. Dr.Kumar H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Hosur, K.R.Nagar Tq.
Mysore District - 571 602.
18
52. Dr.Girish Sidagondappa Patil
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Ukkali, Bagewadi Tq.
Bijapur District - 586 101.
53. Dr.Rajkumar A.Bidarkar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Diggoun,
Gulbarga District - 585 101.
54. Dr.Nagaraj,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Hadadi,
Davanagere Tq. & District - 577 001.
55. Dr.Hariprasad A.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Indargi, Koppal Tq.
Koppal District - 583 231.
56. Dr.Roopa C.Y.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kandagal,
Davanagere Taluk,
Davanagere District - 577 001.
57. Dr.Depali Telsang
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Yediyur, Kunigal Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 130.
58. Dr.Masti Holi Shivananda Chigappa
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
19
PHC, Murgod, Soundatti Tq.
Belgaum District - 590 001.
59. Dr.Madhusudan,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Adagur, K.R.Nagar Tq.
Mysore District - 571 602.
60. Dr.Jagadish Biradar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Mudebiharl
Mudebihal Tq.
Bijapur District - 586 212.
61. Dr.Rajesh S.T.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 42 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Rayee, Bantwal Tq.
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 211.
62. Dr.Ashok M.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Bandihole,
Krishnarajapet Tq.
Mandya District - 571 426.
63. Dr.Ramesh M.C.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Alilaghatta, Gubbi Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 216.
64. Dr.Lakshmidevi G.B.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk Hospital Mundegod,
Mundegod Tq.
U.K. District - 581 349.
20
65. Dr.Jayanth M.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Psychiatry Training at Nimhans,
Bangalore. Residing at No.657,
17th Main Road, Saraswathipuram,
Mysore - 570 001.
66. Dr.Muralidhara P.D.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Devarabelakere,
Harihara Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 601.
67. Dr.Shantosh Kumar
S/o.Dr.V.S.Butte,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital
Aurad, Bidar District - 585 401.
68. Dr.Siddappa Balappa Nayak,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
20 Bedded Hospital,
Ramanagara, Joida Tq.
Karwar District - 581 186.
69. Dr.Arunkumar D,.
S/o.Dakshina Murthy,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Vemagal, Kolar Tq.
Kolar District - 563 101.
70. Dr.Giridhara S.A.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as LSAS (Life Saving
Anesthetic Skill) Specialist
At Taluk General Hospital,
Harihara, Harihara Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 601.
21
71. Dr.Somashekhara Kabbera,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital,
Munirabad, Koppal Tq.
Koppal District - 583 231.
72. Dr.Ravikumar B.V.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Ballala Samudra
Hosadurga Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 527.
73. Dr.Guruswamy N.T.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC -Ujjini, Kudligi Tq.
Bellary District - 583 135.
74. Dr.Geetha S.M.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dommasandra
Anekal Tq.
Bangalore Urban District - 562 106.
75. Dr.Devaraja G.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Ethinaveeraina Kottige,
Chitradurga - 577 501.
76. Dr.Faruq Juneda
S/o.Mohammad Ilyes,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dharadahalli,
Mudigere Tq.
Chickmagalur District - 577 132.
22
77. Dr.Krishna Prasad
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Sanemaralli,
Chamarajanagar Tq. & District - 571 313.
78. Dr.Srikanth B.P.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mullur, Hunsur Tq.
Mysore District - 571 105.
79. Dr.Sharanagouda Chandrashekar Patil,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Government Hospital,
Devadurga,
Raichur District - 584 101.
80. Dr.Shanthosh Kumar V.S.
S/o.V.L.Srinivasaiah Shetty
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Byrakura, Mulbagil Tq.
Kolar District - 563 131.
81. Dr.Manjunath Laxmappa Chickaraddi
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hudali, Belgaum Tq.
Belgaum District - 590 001.
82. Dr.Shashidhar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Daginakatte,
Channagiri Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 213.
83. Dr.Revan Sidda B.H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
23
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hanumanal, Kushtagi Tq.
Kopal District - 584 121.
84. Dr.Ramesh V.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dommasandra,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 562 106.
85. Dr.Leelavathy N.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk Hospital,
Mundaragi, Mundaragi Tq.
Gadag District - 582 118.
86. Dr.Gururaj K.J.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Gukunte, Mulabagilu Tq.
Kolar District - 563 131.
87. Dr.Mallikarjuna M.P.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kuppagadde, Soraba Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 429.
88. Dr.S.R.Chandrik Babu
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Bilikere, Hunsur Tq.
Mysore District - 577 105.
89. Dr.Aruna Patil
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Kudligi
Bellary District - 583 135.
24
90. Dr.Ravi B.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Biliki, Shikaripura Tq.
Shimoga District - 577 427.
91. Dr.Jyothi S.Khandre,
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Belura,
Basavakalyana Tq.
Bidar District - 585 401.
92. Dr.Venkatesha M.P.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Y.N.Hoskote,
Pavagada Tq.
Tumkur District - 561 202.
93. Dr.Geetha D.H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kusanuru, Hanagal Tq.
Haveri District - 581 104.
94. Dr.Mahadevaprasad S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kothegala, Hunsur Tq.
Mysore District - 571 105.
95. Dr.Sudhindra G.B.
S/o.Basavarajappa J.S.,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Gopanahally,
Challakere Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 522.
96. Dr.Shankar Naik N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
25
Aged about 40 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Madhihalli, Harappanahalli Tq.
Davanagere District - 583 131.
97. Dr.Amna Arunachala Hegde
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hiriadaka, Udupi Tq.
Udipi District - 576101.
98. Dr.Naveen Kumar H.B.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Yallambalase, Kadur Tq.
Chickamangalore District - 577 548.
99. Dr.Chitra N.Ramdas Vernekar
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Health Centre, Rajyotsanagara,
Bellary Tq.
Bellary District - 583 101.
100. Dr.K.T.Sridhara
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hirekodagi, Koppa Tq.
Chickmagalur District - 577 548.
101. Dr.Sudhindranath S.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Koladevi, Mulbagal Tq.
Kolar District - 563 131.
102. Dr.Sukumara A.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Agram, Mulabagal Tq.
Kolar District - 563 131.
26
103. Dr.Basavaraj Hanumanthappa Thalwar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital, Kanapura,
Belgaum Dist - 590 001.
104. Dr.Visvanatha Reddy M.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 41 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Hiresindogi, Koppal Tq.
Koppal District - 583 231.
105. Dr.Venkatesh Y.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital,
Hungund, Bagalkot District - 587 118.
106. Dr.Ravindra Goudappa Patil
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hunasikatti,
Bailhongal Tq.
Belgaum District - 591 102.
107. Dr.T.Mahendra Kumar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mudhugere, Channapatna Tq.
Ramanagar District - 571 501.
108. Dr.Murugesh K.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Dadadahalli,
HD Kote Tq.
Mysore District - 571 125.
109. Dr.Udhayashankar S.K.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
27
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Guddadarangevvanahalli,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
110. Dr.Jyothi
W/o.Dr.K.Boregowda,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Sathanur,
Mandya District - 571 401.
111. Dr.Ravindra Naik K
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHU Sampige, Turuvekere Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 227.
112. Dr.Mamatha B.S.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Arasapura,
Harappanahalli Tq.
Davanagere District - 583 131.
113. Dr.Nandakumar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Anwari, Lingasugur Tq.
Raichur District - 584 122.
114. Dr.Shashikala R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kakkera, Shorapur Tq.
Yadgir District - 585 224.
115. Dr.Radha H.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Muthagadooru,
Holalkere Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 526.
28
116. Dr.Venkatesh P.Kalapur,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk General Hospital
Aland, Gulbarga District - 585 101.
117. Dr.Kiran C
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hanbal, Sakaleshpur Tq.
Hassan District - 573 134.
118. Dr.Raghavendra W.Kulkarni
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kodla, Sedam Tq.
Gulbarga District - 585 222.
119. Dr.Srikanth Mallappa Sambrani
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Alnavar,
Dharwad District - 580 001.
120. Dr.Priyadarshini N.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
India Population Project - 9,
Health Centre, Ashoknagar,
Gulbarga District - 585 101.
121. Dr.Subodh Kumar Rai G
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Adyanadka, Bantawal Tq.
Dakshina Kannada District - 574 211.
122. Dr.Ravindra R.Anteen
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
29
PHC Akkathangerahala
Gokak Tq.
Belgaum District - 591 307.
123. Dr.Neelesh M.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Guddada Komaranahalli,
Channagiri Tq.
Davanagere District - 577 213.
124. Dr.Srinivasa M.Devadurga
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Narona, Alanda Tq.
Gulbarga District - 585 302.
125. Dr.Shanthakumar K.V.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
General Hospital, H.D.Kote
Mysore District - 571 125.
126. Dr.Laxmish Naik,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 32 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Bankikodla, Kumta Tq.
U.K. District - 581 343.
127. Dr.Kavitha K
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Hanagal, Hanagal Tq.
Haveri District - 581 104.
128. Dr.Syeeda Afiya Yasmeen,
D/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Konkal, Yadgir Tq.
Yadgir District - 585 201.
30
129. Dr.Rashmi M.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Moodbidri
Chickmagalur District - 577 101.
130. Dr.Lokesha C.M.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Agile,
Hassan Tq.
Hassan District - 573 201.
131. Dr.Padmavathi M.
W/o.K.Harish,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Avathi, Devanahalli Tq.
Bangalore District - 562 110.
132. Dr.Shivakumar L.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Sattegal, Kollegal Tq.
Chamarajanagar District - 571 440.
133. Dr.Puttappa S.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Madalu, Arasikere Tq.
Hassan District - 573 103.
134. Dr.Hoyisala H.N.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Salagame, Hassan Tq.
Hassan District - 577 213.
135. Dr.Jagadeesh K.Jinigi
S/o.K.B.Jinigi,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
31
PHC Deshnur, Bailhongal Tq.
Belgaum District - 591 102.
136. Dr.Manjuntha.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 31 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Teragaon, Haliyal Tq.
U.K. District - 581 329.
137. Dr.Nagaraj
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Taluk General Hospital
Basavakalyan,
Bidar District - 585 327.
138. Dr.Mahesh H.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Hosakere,
Madhugere Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 132.
139. Dr.Dhanalakshmi D.P.
W/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Belegere, Tiptur Tq.
Tumkur District - 572 201.
140. Dr.Praveen A.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Gowdihalli, Holalkere Tq.
Chitradurga District - 577 526.
141. Dr.Madhusudan M.R.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Saraguru, H.D.Kote Tq.
Mysore District - 571 125.
32
142. Dr.Dayamani B,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Siddapura aKadugondanahalli,
Bangalore West Tq.
Bangalore Urban District -560 045.
143. Dr.Sarala H.S.
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Konehalli,Doddaballapur Taluk
Bangalore Rural District-561203.
144. Dr.Vishwajith Nayak
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 43 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kundana, Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District.562110.
145. Dr.Parameshwar Suresh Kenchannavar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Munavalli, Saundatti Taluk
Belgaum District - 591 126.
146. Dr.Vikas Parappa Savadi
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mudakavi, Ramadurga Taluk
Belgaum District - 591 123.
147. Dr.Vijay Kumar.H
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Yelakethane Halli, Nelamangala Taluk
Bangalore Rural District - 562123.
148. Dr.Mohammed Yousnus Saleem
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
33
PHC Konkal, Yadagir taluk
Yadgir District - 585 201.
149. Dr.Shivakumar
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Thondebhavi, Gowribidanur Taluk
Chickaballapur District - 571 125.
150. Dr.Shashikumar.S.D,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC D K Halli, Malavalahalli Tq,
Mandya District.
151. Dr.Rajkumar R,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Maniganahalli, Magadi Tq,
Ramanagara District.
152. Dr.Mallikarjuna G.P,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 31 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Jade, Soraba Tq,
Shimoga District.
153. Dr.Santhosh A.N,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC Sirigere, Chitradurga District.
154. Dr.K Satish Babu,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Ellodu, Guddibande Tq,
Chickaballapur District.
155. Dr.Meena Kumari T.D,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 37 years,
34
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mudenura, Kustagi Tq,
Koppal District.
156. Dr.Geetha N S,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC M C Halli, Arikere Tq,
Chikkamagalur District.
157. Dr.A Ramu,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Somayajalahalli, Srinivasapur Tq,
Kolar District.
158. Dr.Anitha N S,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Koddihalli Koppalu,
Hassan District - 563 135.
159. Dr.Bharathi P,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kamagere, Kolegal Tq,
Chamarajanagara District - 571 443.
160. Dr.Rajendra Prasad T C,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kallanakuppe, Ramanagar Dist-571 511.
161. Dr.Anasuya M,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC N G Halli Tq,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
162. Dr.Naveen R,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
35
Aged about 31 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC (Extension Unit) Doddapalanahalli,
Yelerampura, Koratagere Tq,
Tumkur District - 572 129.
163. Dr.Bhanumathi P M,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Mudalapippe, Holenarasipura Tq,
Hassan District - 573 211.
164. Dr.Suchetha K R,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 35 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kadusonnappanahalli,
Bangalore East Tq,
Bangalore Urban District - 562 149.
165. Dr.Veena H N,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Topasandra,
Ramanagar District - 562 112.
166. Dr.Dhanya Kumar,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 38 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Kadanur, Doddabalapura Tq,
Bangalore Rural District - 561 203.
167. Dr.Raghavendra G S,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 39 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Muttodu, Hosadurga Tq,
Chitradurga District - 577 527.
168. Dr.Ravi Kanthi,
S/o.Not known to the petitioner,
Aged about 34 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
36
PHC Kamalapura,
Gulbarga Tq/District - 585 101.
169. Karnataka Religious and Linguistics Minority
Professional Colleges Association,
Flat No.143, 4th Floor,
'Suryamukhi' Garden Apartments,
#21, vittal Mallaya Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
By its Convener.
170. Consortium of Medical Engineering and Dental
Colleges of Karnataka,
#132, 2nd Floor, 11th Main,
17th Cross, Malleswaram,
Bangalore - 560 055.
By its Convener.
(R-169 and 170 amended as per court
order dated 30.5.2012)
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and
Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3:
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4,
Sri Siddappa, Sunil and Nitin, Advocates for R-6, 10, 12,
14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34,
35, 40, 41, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 58, 66,
Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate for R-68, 70, 71,
76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 94, 97, 115, 123,
M/s. P.S.Rajagopal Associates for R-127, 130, 131,
133, 134, 144,151, 157, 159, 168,
Sri V.R.Sarathy, Advocate for R-7, 8 and 16,
K.Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate for R-170,
Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya and Associates for R-18 and 65)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the
inclusion of R-125 to 160 in the departmental merit list of in-
service candidates for post graduation degree/diploma
selection for the year 2012-13 published by the R-3 vide
Annexure-E to the W.P. is illegal and contrary to the
notification dated 18.12.2007 and etc.
37
WP No.14430/2012
BETWEEN :
Dr.Kavitha K,
W/o Dr.Nagaraj Kuri,
Aged about 33 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Community Health Centre,
Hanagal, Hanagal Taluk,
Haveri District - 581 104. ... Petitioner
(By Sri N.Sonnegowda, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Health and
Family Welfare,
M.S.Building, Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Commissioner,
Health and Family Welfare,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Director,
Health and Family Welfare,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Mission Director,
National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
Health and Family Welfare,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
5. The Director,
Medical Education Services, (PGET)
Health and Family Welfare,
Ananda Rao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009. ... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and
Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-5)
38
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records ending
with the circular dated 11.4.12 issued in No.JRO (M) 63/11-12
and provisional list published in the website by the R2 herein
vide Annex-G and etc.
WP Nos.16337-16349/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Dr.C.M.Lokesha,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o P.M.Malleshappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Agile, Hassan Taluk
Hassan District - 573 201.
2. Dr.K.Kavitha,
Aged about 33 years,
D/o K.Doddanagabusappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Hanagal, Hanagal Taluk,
Haveri District - 581 104.
3. Dr.Parasappa G Churchihal,
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Gurappa P Churchihal,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Hosur, Savadatti Taluk,
Belgaum District - 591 111.
4. Dr.P.Bharathi,
Aged about 33 years,
D/o B.C.Premkumar,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Kamagere, Kollegal Taluk,
Chamarajnagar District - 571 440.
5. Dr.Jagadish K Jingi,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o K.G.Jingi,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
39
Deshnur, Bailhongal Taluk,
Belgaum District - 591 147.
6. Dr.A.Ramu,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o G Anjaneya,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Somayajalahalli,
Srinivasapur Taluk,
Kolar District - 563 138.
7. Dr.S.R.Puttappa,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Rangappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Madalu, Arasikere Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 117.
8. Dr.M.Padmavathi,
Aged about 33 years,
D/o M.Sathyanarayana,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Avathi, Devenahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 110.
9. Dr.R.Raja Kumar,
Aged about 33 years,
S/o M.R.Renukappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Maniganahalli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District - 562 120.
10. Dr.Ravikanti,
Aged about 33 years,
W/o Dr.Sharanabasappa,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Kamalapur, Taluk & District
Gulbarga - 585 313.
11. Dr.C.Vishwajit Naik,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Champala Naik,
40
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Kundana, Devenahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 110.
12. Dr.Hoyisala.H.N,
S/o Nanjappa S N
Aged about 36 years,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Salagame, Hassan - 573 219.
13. Dr.M.G.Nagaraju,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o K.H.Gopal,
Working as Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre,
Kanasawadi, Madhure Hobli,
Doddaballapur Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 561 203.
... Petitioners
(By Sri M.N.Prasanna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Vikas Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001 represented by
Its Principal Secretary.
2. The Commissioner,
Health & Family Welfare Services,
Anandarao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
3. The Director of Health & Family
Welfare, Directorate of Health &
Family Welfare Services,
Anandarao Circle,
Bangalore - 560 009.
4. The Rajiv Gandhi University of
Health Services, 4th 'T' Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 041,
Represented by its Registrar.
41
5. Dr.K.R.Mohan Kumar,
S/o not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC Koyira, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
6. Dr.M.N.Girish Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Aaradeshahalli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
7. Dr.H.M.Lohitha,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
District Hospital, Chikkamagalur.
8. Dr.B.Lakshmidevi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
TBP Hospital, Tungabhadra Road,
T.B.Dam, Hospet.
9. Dr.L.M.Vasanth Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Aarakere (B), Yadgiri District.
10. Dr.S.Venugopal,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
L.H.Hospital, Bangalore.
11. Dr.C.M.Hanumantharaju,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC Namagondlu, Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
42
12. Dr.Sathish Gangappa,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Telasanga, Chikkodi Taluk,
Belgaum District.
13. Dr.C.T.Divya Kumari,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kanchanahalli,
Hassan District.
14. Dr.M.Uma,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
KCG Hospital, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore - 560 011.
15. Dr.D.Balachandra,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Dasanakoppa,
Shirasi Taluk, U.K.District.
16. Dr.Basanagowda Karigowdara,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
THO, Mundaragi, Mudaragi Taluk,
Gadag District.
17. Dr.M.Hema,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District.
18. Dr.K.Jagadish,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Dandinashivara,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
43
19. Dr.B.R.Rajesh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, Hagaribommanahalli,
Bellary District.
20. Dr.Rajendra,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PCH, Maravalli, Shikaripura Taluk,
Shimoga District.
21. Dr.P.B.Girish,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kalgere,
Chitradurga District.
22. Dr.P.M.Marulasiddappa,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Malebennuru, Harihara Taluk,
Davangere District.
23. Dr.Kusuma,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
IPP-8, Health Centre,
Rajendranagar, Mysore District.
24. Dr.Hifjur Rehaman,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Shirur, Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District.
25. Dr.Kumaraswamy Yettinamath,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Asundi, Savadatti Taluk,
Belgaum District.
26. Dr.Shivanagowda Patil,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
44
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Holagera, Kustagi Taluk,
Koppal District.
27. Dr.C.Mohan Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Shringeri, Shringeri Taluk,
Chikamagalur District.
28. Dr.D.G.Kishor Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Kushalnagar,
Kodagu District.
29. Dr.H.N.Sundaresh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Nandipura, Madigere Taluk,
Chikkamagalur District.
30. Dr.Om Prakash Ambure,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Peta Ammapura,
Yadagiri District.
31. Dr.M.D.Khaja Mohinuddin,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Pamanakalluru,
Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.
32. Dr.K.L.Venugopal,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Pandomatti, Channagiri Taluk,
Davangere District.
33. Dr.S.J.Mohan,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Mysolal, Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimoga District.
45
34. Dr.Suresh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Anandapura,
Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District.
35. Dr.K.M.Vrunda Prabhu,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Mallanduru,
Chikkamagalur District.
36. Dr.V.Revathi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Avalahalli, Bangalore East Tq.,
Bangalore (U) District.
37. Dr.B.Raju,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, Hunasuru, Mysore District.
38. Dr.Kavitha Pattanashetti,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Melavanaki,
Belgaum District.
39. Dr.Jafarsadik Faqiruddin Saiyad,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kanamadi,
Bijapur Taluk & District.
40. Dr.Malkajayya,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, Sindhanuru,
Raichur District.
41. Dr.O.Mallappa,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Antgaragange,
Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimoga District.
46
42. Dr.Sanjeev Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kavaluru, Yadgiri District.
43. Dr.B.Kiran Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Hirisave,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District.
44. Dr.H.Shammi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Halekote, Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan District.
45. Dr.M.G.Ashok,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Hittala, Shikaripura Taluk,
Shimoga District.
46. Dr.L.Vijayalaxmi,,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Dibbura,
Chikaballapur District.
47. Dr.R.Srinivas,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Hittala, Shikaripura Taluk,
Shimoga District.
48. Dr.R.Sathya Narayana,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Paduvalahippe, Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan District.
49. Dr.Gunari Sampath,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Malaghana, Sindagi Taluk,
Bijapur District.
47
50. Dr.D.Madhav,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, K.R.Nagar,
Mysore District.
51. Dr.H.M.Suresh Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC,Manne, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore (R) District.
52. Dr.P.Geethapriya,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, K.M.Doddi, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
53. Dr.Veena P Itnalmath,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Dodawada, Bylahongala Taluk,
Belgaum District.
54. Dr.Sharanabasava,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Andola, Jeevargi Taluk,
Gulbarga District.
55. Dr.S.Manjunatha,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Alakapura, Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
56. Dr.Banadeshwara Gabbura,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Koppara,
Raichur District.
57. Dr.K.S.Rashmi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Jagadapura, Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
48
58. Dr.Sunil Evans Jattanna,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kudupu,
Dakshina Kannada District.
59. Dr.Raghu T Gokhale,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Nonavinakere, Tipturu Taluk,
Tumkur District.
60. Dr.B.Srinivas,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kannali, Bangalore North Tq.,
Bangalore (U) District.
61. Dr.Sanganna Lakkappa Lakkannavar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
DSO,Bijapura.
62. Dr.Mahadeva Nayaka,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
DSO, Chamarajnagar.
63. Dr.H.T.Harish,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
THO, K.R.Pete, Mandya District.
64. Dr.G.S.Shreedhar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Udayapura, Channapatna Taluk,
Hassan District.
65. Dr.G.B.Lingaraju,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH, Hosanagara, Hosanagara Taluk,
Shimoga District.
66. Dr.T.L.N.Kumari,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
49
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Tipaturu, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
67. Dr.H.K.Ramesh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kodihalli, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
68. Dr.Anil Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Gunjalli, RaichurTaluk & District.
69. Dr.S.L.Mohan Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
GH Kunigal, Tumkur District.
70. Dr.P.H.Jayaram,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
DH, Chitraduraga.
71. Dr.S.K.Mohan Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Ranganathapura Hiriyuru Taluk,
Chitradurga District.
72. Dr.Gopala G Hargi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Korlakai, Siddapura Taluk,
U.K.
73. Dr.R.Manjula,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Nanjihalli, Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District.
74. Dr.Mahesh B.More,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
50
PHC, Musturu, Gangavathi Taluk,
Koppala District.
75. Dr.R.Satish Babu,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kaggaladahundi, Gundlupet Taluk,
Chamarajnagar District.
76. Dr.S.Shashanka,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Taggikuppe, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
77. Dr.G.M.Mohan Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kulambi, Honnali Taluk,
Davangere District.
78. Dr.H.L.Giraddi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Rona, Rona Taluk,
Gadag District.
79. Dr.C.Y.Roopa,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kundagal, Davangere Taluk & District.
80. Dr.S.C.Mastiholi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Muragoda, Savadatti Taluk,
Belgaum District.
81. Dr.Shankar Rao,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kadatoka.
51
82. Dr.G.S.Nagappa,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Rayakoppalu, AluruTaluk,
Hassan District.
83. Dr.D.N.Nagalaxmi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kowshika, Hassan Taluk & District.
84. Dr.M.Brahmehndra,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
District Hospital,
Chamarajnagar.
85. Dr.D.Basavaraja,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Raravi, Siraguppa Taluk,
Bellary District.
86. Dr.Asha Abikar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
Deputy Director (PHCF),
K.H.S.D.R.P., Bangalore.
87. Dr.M.Ashok,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Bondihole, K.r.Pete Taluk,
Mandya District.
88. Dr.Jagadish G Biradara,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Muddebihala, Bijapura Taluk & District.
52
89. Dr.S.T.Rajesh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Rayi, Bantwala Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada District.
90. Dr.C.H.Praveen Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
DHO, Bangalore (R).
91. Dr.B.S.Balakrishna,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
THO, Shrirangapattanna,
Mandya District.
92. Dr.S.R.Suma,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Hosadurga, Chitraduraga District.
93. Dr.M.C.Remesh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Alaughatta, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
94. Dr.S.P.Channakeshava,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Tovinakere, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
95. Dr.M.V.Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Jayanagar, Bangalore.
53
96. Dr.Narasimha Murthy,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Bagaluru, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore (U) District.
97. Dr.S.H.Dasharatha,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
District Civil Hospital, Bijapura.
98. Dr.K.S.Nataraja,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
DHO, Shimoga.
99. Dr.N.T.Murali,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kittanagamangala, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
100. Dr.N.Vanishree,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
101. Dr.Ashoka Venkobarao,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
DTO, Bangalore Rural District.
102. Dr.A.Kavitha Rani,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
H.S.Y.S. Ghosha Hospital, Bangalore.
103. Dr. M.K.Satish,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
DSO, Madikere.
104. Dr.Kamalamma,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
54
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Hadagali, Bellary District.
105. Dr.D.Jayalakshmi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Challakere, Chtradurga District.
106. Dr.B.Omkaramurthy,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
DH, Chitradurga District.
107. Dr.Nagesh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Kandluru, Kundapura Taluk,
Udupi District.
108. Dr.Vasantha,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, avinahalli, Sagar Taluk,
Shimoga District.
109. Dr.B.M.Shivaswamy,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Byramangala,
Ramanagara Taluk & District.
110. Dr.Chandrakala,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
Metarnity Hospital, Bhashanagar,
Davanagere.
111. Dr.Suresh Pujar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Aduru, Hanagal Taluk,
Haveri District.
55
112. Dr.K.S.Mohan,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
THO, Sagara Taluk,
Shimoga.
113. Dr.B.C.Jaganath,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, N.Belatturu, H.D.Kote Taluk,
Mysore District.
114. Dr.H.J.Shalini,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
UFWC, Jeppu, Mangalore.
115. Dr.Remash H.Sanni,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Badami, Bagalkote Taluk & District.
116. Dr.H.R.Rajashekaraiah,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Honnamacchanahalli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
117. Dr.C.S.Sathish Kumar,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Talikote, Muddebihal Taluk,
Bijapur District.
118. Dr.Sharanappa Mudabi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Hallikhed (B), Humnabad Taluk,
Bidar District.
119. Dr.M.H.Amaresh,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
Major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
CHC, Hebbala, Gulbarga Taluk & District.
56
120. Dr.S.R.Krishnamurthy,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
GH, Helamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
121. Dr.Neetha Bilagi,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age,
Working as Medical Officer,
Urban Health Centre, Nehrunagar,
Dharwad District.
122. Dr.S.Usha Vanashree,
Father's name not known to the petitioners,
major by age, working as Medical Officer,
PHC, Meluru, Shidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and
Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3;
Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the circular dated
16.5.12 vide Annx-L along with the Annexure notifying the list
of in-service candidates who have completed above 5 years
for the purpose of admission to postgraduate degree issued
by R3 and also notification dated 18.5.12 allotting college
wise seats pursuant to first round of counseling dated 17.5.12
for medical in-service candidates (vide Annx-V issued by R4
by issue of writ in the nature of certiorari and direct the
respondents/state government and the R4/university to redo
the counseling in terms of the merit obtained by the
petitioners as stipulated by the state government in the
provisional merit list dated 11.4.12 under Annx-J and etc.
These writ petitions having been heard and reserved for
orders on 01.06.2012, coming on for pronouncement this day,
the Court made the following:
57
ORDER
These petitions involve the dispute amongst the in- service doctors seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses.
2. The grievance of the thirty petitioners in W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 is over the inclusion of the respondent Nos.5 to 168 in the provisional departmental merit list of in-service candidates for admission to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses for the year 2012-2013. The said petitioners are contending that the respondent Nos.5 to 168 are ineligible to be included in the said list, because they have not completed six years of service. The respondent Nos.5 to 66 are absorbed as regular doctors by virtue of the Karnataka Civil Service (Absorption of Doctors appointed on Contract Basis in the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services) (Special) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as '2006 Absorption Rules'). Rule 3(2) of the 2006 Absorption Rules contains the condition that they shall not be eligible for deputation for higher studies unless they have worked for atleast a period of 6 years in the rural areas.
3. Similarly, the respondent Nos.67 to 124 are absorbed by virtue of the Karnataka Civil Service (Absorption of Doctors 58 appointed on Contract Basis in the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services) (Special) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as '2007 Absorption Rules'). Rule 3(2) of the 2007 Absorption Rules also contains the same condition as found in the 2006 Absorption Rules. The respondent Nos.125 to 168 are directly recruited in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The notifications, dated 18.12.2007, 8.2.2008 and 9.1.2009 issued in respect of the recruitments made in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively also contain the following conditions:
i) They shall compulsorily work for 6 years in the rural area during their service.
ii) They are not entitled to continue their postgraduate education, if they are doing the said course.
4. As the said Rules and notifications contain these conditions and as the respondent Nos.5 to 168 have not completed 6 years of service, they are not eligible to take part in the forthcoming Entrance Test for admission to postgraduate medical degree/diploma courses ('PGET 2012' for short).
5. Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob for the petitioners in 59 W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 submits that the participation of the respondent Nos.5 to 168 is in clear violation of Rule 3(2) of the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules and the notifications under or by virtue of which they are appointed. The inclusion of their names in the merit list is contrary to the very condition under which they are appointed. Certain amendments are directed towards the unauthorised end of making the respondent Nos.5 to 168 eligible, who are otherwise ineligible, to apply for admission to postgraduate medical courses.
6. The learned Senior Counsel assails the notification, dated 21.2.2012, which amends the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules by omitting the condition that the absorbed doctors shall not be deputed for higher studies for a period of six years.
7. He also takes serious exception to the omission of the said condition retrospectively. Though the notification itself is issued on 21.2.2012, the omission is deemed to have come into force from 30.12.2011. The said retrospective amendment has negatively affected the vested right of the petitioners, which is impermissible in law. 60
8. He sought to draw the support from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY AND OTHERS reported in (1994) 5 SCC 450, wherein it is held the power to make laws with retrospective effect cannot be used to deprive a person of an accrued right vested in him. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
"14. The legislatures and the competent authority under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have the power to make laws with retrospective effect. This power, however, cannot be used to justify the arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional acts of the Executive. When a person is deprived of an accrued right vested in him under a statute or under the Constitution and he successfully challenges the same in the court of law, the legislature cannot render the said right and the relief obtained nugatory by enacting retrospective legislation.
15. Respectfully following the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to and quoted above, we are of the view that the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 cannot be sustained. We are satisfied that the retrospective amendment of Rule 13 of the Rules takes away the vested rights of Mohanty and other general category candidates senior to respondents 2 to 9. We, therefore, declare amended Rule 13 to the extent it has been made operative retrospectively to be unreasonable, arbitrary and, as such, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We strike down the retrospective operation of 61 the rule. In the view we have taken on the point it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised by Mohanty."
9. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case P.D.AGARWAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 3 SCC 622 to strengthen his argument that the vested right cannot be taken away by retrospective amendment of statute or statutory rules arbitrarily and unreasonably. While advancing the contention that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game itself is played, he cited the Apex Court's judgment in the case of K.MANJUSHREE v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512.
10. The learned Senior Counsel also read out para 11 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of N.T.DEVIN KATTI AND OTHERS v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS reported in (1990) 3 SCC 157. It is as follows:
"11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the 62 extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing rules and the government orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,he 63 does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature."
11. The doctors recruited in 2007, 2008 and 2009 have not completed five years of regular service as provided under the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 ('KCSR' for short). The KCSR prescribe minimum five years of regular service as the pre-requirement for deputation to higher studies.
12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the State is not justified in trying to create equality between the two unequal groups (absorbed doctors and directly recruited doctors).
13. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the weightage of 8 marks for every completed year of rural service is manifestly arbitrary. He wonders as to what is so sacrosanct about 8 marks. The Rules do not disclose the basis as to how the Government has arrived at the figure of 8 marks. He submits that the upholding of the additional weightage of 8 marks by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF M.P vs. GOPAL D.TIRTHANI AND OTHERS reported in (2003)7 SCC 83 is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of 64 the said case. The parameters of the said case are not available here. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has said that the quantum for the additional weightage in rural/tribal areas has to be reasonable, rational and on the application of mind.
14. The learned Senior Counsel submits that as the Government doctors would not have any say in the matter of their posting, those who are posted to rural areas, are getting the unfair advantage over those, who are posted to urban areas, in the matter of admission to the postgraduate courses. He complains of the gross discrimination and irrationality in the quantum of rural weightage.
15. W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 is filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the notification, dated 21.2.2012 omitting the condition that the absorbed in-service doctors cannot be deputed for higher studies for a period of 6 years. The said petitions are filed by the doctors, who have been in the services of the Government but on contract basis from 1998. They were absorbed in 2006 by virtue of the 2006 Absorption Rules. Their grievance is that the flood-gates for all in-service candidates are opened regardless of their date of absorption and period of regular service. 65
16. Sri Nithin, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Appendix II-A to KCSR prescribes a minimum period of 5 years of regular service for deputation for higher studies. Under 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules, as they stood unamended, the condition is 6 years of regular service in the rural areas. Thus, if the omission of the 6 years condition from the Absorption Rules is upheld, then also, the in-service doctors cannot seek deputation unless they have completed 5 years of service as per the KCSR. The Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Postgraduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course, 2006 ('PGET Rules' for short) lay down the prescription that unless an in- service doctor has completed 3 years of regular services, he is not eligible for the said Test. When an in-service doctor cannot be deputed for higher studies, even if he is permitted to appear for the entrance examination, it serves no useful purpose. Hence, the doctors appointed/ absorbed from 2007 onwards cannot be permitted to take part in the process of admissions and selection. He submits that the junior batches of doctors have to wait patiently till the turn of their batches comes. He read out para 4 of the Division Bench judgment, dated 7.6.2011 passed in W.A.Nos.4457-4461/2011 and other connected appeals, wherein it is held that the in-service doctors are required to complete 6 years of service after their 66 absorption, before they can seek to be deputed to a postgraduate course.
17. He submits that he is pressing only W.P.No.15366/2012.
18. He submits that the doctors absorbed in 2006 meet the eligibility criteria prescribed under all the three sets of Rules - KCSR, 2006 Absorption Rules and PGET Rules.
19. He would also contend that only those batches of doctors, who are recruited/absorbed upto 2006 alone are entitled to grace (weightage) marks and not the 2007 and downward batches.
20. W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811- 15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 are filed by the in-service doctors, who were appointed on contract basis in 1999-2000. Their services were regularized in 2007. Their grievance is over their exclusion from the counseling operations as a consequence of the issuance of the impugned circular, dated 16.5.2012 (Annexure-Q), which itself is said to be in the wake of the granting of the interim order in W.P.Nos.15365- 15366/2012.
21.Sri Uday Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath for the petitioners in 67 W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811-15812/2012, 15813- 15816/2012 submits that the first petitioner has topped the merit list by securing the highest number of marks. He submits that the petitioners have put in nearly 13 years of unbroken service as Government doctors.
22. The learned Senior Counsel submits that if there is repugnancy between the KCSR and the Absorption Rules, the latter shall prevail over the former. He submits that the KCSR being a general Rule does not prevail over the PGET Rules. As the deputation of doctors for higher studies is governed by the said provisions contained in Absorption Rules, the applicability of Appendix II-A to KCSR stands excluded. For contending that the special rules prevail over the general rule, he relied on the following authorities:
i) (2010) 4 SCC 498 - Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and others.
ii) (1985) 4 SCC 645 - S.C.Jain v. State of Haryana and another.
iii) AIR 1991 SC 855 - Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another v. Punjab National Bank and others.
23. Sri Holla cites another reason for contending that Appendix II-A has no application in the matter of admission to postgraduate courses for in-service doctors; it states that the 68 deputation has to be purely on the basis of seniority. If the deputation is to be only on the basis of seniority, then there is no need to hold the entrance test for the in-service doctors. The admission process to the postgraduate course is as per the PGET Rules and not as per Appendix II-A.
24. For advancing the contention that KCSRs applies only if they are not inconsistent with the Absorption Rules, he read out Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules, which are extracted hereinbelow:
"5. The provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and all other rules regulating the conditions of service of Government servants in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, shall apply to persons absorbed under these rules."
25. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Government has thought it fit to omit 6 years' embargo for eligibility to deputation for higher studies with the objective of encouraging the talented Government doctors before the downhill sets in their enthusiasm. He submits that the draft notification for omitting 6 years embargo was issued on 30.12.2011. The said notification specifically stated that the amendment shall come into force with effect from 30.12.2011 Nobody including the petitioners in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 have 69 filed objections to the said draft notification. Therefore, they are not justified in challenging the final notification.
26. He submits that Section 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978, under which the Absorption Rules are amended by omitting the 6 years' embargo with retrospective effect, read as follows:
"8. Power to make rules.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any rule made under this Act may be made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made, the reasons for making the rule shall be specified in a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State Legislature and subject to any modification made under sub-section (3), every rule made under this Act shall have effect as if it is enacted in this Act.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or the sessions immediately following both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule of or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any notification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule."70
27. On the permissibility of the retrospective amendments, he read out para 31 from the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE BANK'S STAFF UNION (MADRAS CIRCLE) v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 7 SCC 584.
"31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vested rights cannot be taken away by the legislature by way of retrospective legislation. The plea is without substance. Whenever any amendment is brought in force retrospectively or any provision of the Act is deleted retrospectively, in this process rights of some are bound to be affected one way or the other. In every case the exercise by the legislature by introducing a new provision or deleting an existing provision with retrospective effect per se does not amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The legislature can change, as observed by this Court in Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re the basis on which a decision is given by the Court and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of persons and events at large. It cannot, however, set aside an individual decision inter partes and affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power by the State and to function as an appellate court or tribunal, which is against the concept of separation of powers."
28. He has also relied on the following authorities:
i) AIR 2003 SC 2236 - Bakhtawar Trust and others v. M.D.Narayan and others.71
ii) (1988) 2 SCC 201 - K.V.Subba Rao and others v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.
iii) AIR 1963 SC 274 - Dr.Indramani Pyarelal Gupta and others v. W.R.Natu and others.
iv) (2006) 3 SCC 620 - Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others.
v) (1990) 3 SCC 157 - N.T.Devin Katti and others v.
Karnataka Public Service Commission and others.
vi) (2004) 1 SCC 712 - Dharam Dutt and others v.
Union of India and others.
vii) (2011) 13 SCC 383 - State of Jharkhand and others v. Ashok Kumar Dangi and others.
29. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the PGET Rules states that an in-service doctor is eligible for admission to PGET, if he has put in not less than 3 years of regular service, as on 31st March of the year of admission, which in the instant case is 31.3.2012. In this regard, he read out Rule 10(1)(a) of the PGET Rules. It is extracted hereinbelow:
"10. Government of Karnataka in-service candidates.
1. No in-service candidate shall be eligible for admission under these rules:-
a. Unless he/she has put in not less than Three years of regular service in the concerned department as on 31st March of year of admission. (As amended in Government 72 Notification No.HFW 593 MPS 2010, dated 18.1.2011 and 7.4.2011."
30. On the introduction of the weightage of 8 marks to the in-service doctors, who have served in rural areas, it is Sri Holla's submission that the Government has thought it fit to give such weightage only to attract the doctors to the rural areas. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the embargo of 6 years was an onerous clause, which was not in public interest.
31. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Heydon's Rule (Mischief Rule) squarely applies. While interpreting a section of an enactment, one must consider what was the earlier law and what was the mischief that was sought to be remedied by the amendment or new section. Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in the cases of BENGAL IMMUNITY CO. LTD. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS and QUARRY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1955 SC 661 and (2000) 8 SCC 655 he submits that the Courts must adopt the construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. The mischief was that for a period of 6 years, the in-service doctors were not entitled to be deputed to higher studies. This mischief is remedied by amending the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules.
73
32. W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 is filed by the doctors, who were initially appointed on contract basis between 2003 and 2005. Subsequently, they were appointed by direct recruitment pursuant to the selection process by the State Government between 2007 and 2009. Their grievance is over the drawing of the ranking list, which itself is said to be in the wake of the passing of the interim order in two petitions. (W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012).
33. Sri M.N.Prasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 (who are the respondents in W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636- 664/2012) submits that the awarding of the weightage of 8 marks for every completed year of rural service beyond five years of service is rational and hence justifiable. He read out para 36 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal D.Tirthani case (supra).
"36. We sum up our conclusions as under:
4. It is permissible to assign a reasonable weightage to services rendered in rural/tribal areas by the in-service candidates for the purpose of determining inter se merit within the class of in-service candidates who have qualified 74 in the pre-PG test by securing the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the Medical Council of India."
34. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 are estopped from challenging the selection process, as they have participated in it with their eyes wide open under the teeth of the notifications, dated 18.1.2011 and 7.4.2011. They took a chance in the selection process and on finding themselves abysmally low in merit list are now turning down and raising the challenge to the selection process. He submits that the said parties are not justified in challenging the introduction of Rule 5A by the notification, dated 18.1.2011, as they have got 30 marks weightage added to their marks by virtue of the same Rule. Even when they are given 30 marks weightage, they are not in a position to qualify for the seats in the service quota.
35. For buttressing his submissions, the learned counsel relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of MANISH KUMAR SHAHI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576, wherein it is held that a candidate who has participated in the selection process and failed to qualify cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the 75 process of selection. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment read by him, is as follows:
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 90% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amal Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines."
36. The learned counsel also read out paragraph Nos.7 to 10 from the Apex Court judgment in the case of DHANANJAY MALIK AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC
171. They are extracted hereinbelow:
"7. It is not disputed that the respondent - writ petitioners herein participated in the process of 76 selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.
8. In Madal Lal v. State of J & K this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.
9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent - writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have 77 challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.
10. In a recent judgment in Marripati Nagaraja v.Govt. of A.P., SCR at p.516, this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process."
37. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the Apex Court's judgment in the case of VIJENDRA KUMAR VERMA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 1 SCC
510. Head Note 'D' of the said reported decision is extracted hereinbelow:
"D. Service Law - Recruitment process - Challenge to recruitment process - Acquiescence - Challenge to selection criteria after participating in selection process- Impermissibility of - Appellant appeared for examinations and was declared to be successful in written examinations - Appellant then participated in interview and in tests to determine his computer knowledge - Appellant was not selected as he lacked basic knowledge of computer operations-Held, appellant appeared in interview knowing selection criteria that too without any protest at any stage - Now he cannot turn back to state that procedure adopted for selection was wrong and without jurisdiction
- Uttaranchal Judical Service Rules, 2005 - Rr.8, 14, 17, 78 18 and 19 - Estoppel, Acquiescence and Waiver - Acquiescence - Doctrines - Doctrine of approbate and reprobate."
38. Sri V.R.Sarathy, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7, 8 and 16 in W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 has raised the threshold bar to the maintainability of the writ petitions. He submits that the prayer 'B' for quashing amendment to Rule 3 of the Absorption Rules 2006 and 2007 or in the alternative for quashing the said Rules themselves and consequently to terminate the services of respondent Nos.5 to 124 pertain to the conditions of service. Therefore, the petitioners cannot approach this Court in the first instance itself without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy of filing the case before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Relying on this Court's decision in the case of K.S.SUNITHA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 3194 he would submit that an in-service doctor's chance to get a seat to postgraduate medical courses may be examined here, but the issue of deputation has to be raised only before the Tribunal, as it is a condition of service. He read out para 31 of the said decision.
"31. From the discussion made above, it is clear that allotment of a Post Graduate seat to an in-service candidate is not made a part of the Karnataka Civil 79 Service Rules. An in-service candidate has a chance to secure a seat for higher studies. He cannot claim a seat as a matter of right. It is not intrinsically connected with conditions of service. I am of the view that petitioner's entitlement to a seat for Post- Graduate course as in-service candidate is not a condition of service. Therefore the writ petitioners filed by the petitioners are maintainable. Point No.(ii) is accordingly answered."
39. To drive home the point that the deputation is a condition of service, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. KAILASH NATH reported in (1989) 1 SCC 321. He brings to my notice the first part of para 7 of the said decision, which reads as follows:
"7. In the normal course what falls within the purview of the term "conditions of service" may be classified as salary or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical increment, pay scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings..................."
(emphasis supplied)
40. As the impugned notifications involve the omission of a condition regarding the deputation, the proper forum for the ventilation of petitioners' grievance is the Administrative Tribunal.
80
41. The learned counsel submits that this Court cannot be approached in the first instance even for the purpose of challenging the vires of the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules. In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of RAJEEV KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 4 SCC 554. Paras 11 and 12 of the said decision read as follows:
"11. On a proper reading of the above quoted two sentences, it is clear:
a) The tribunals will function the only court of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted.
b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires of legislation, excepting the legislation under which tribunal has been set up, in such cases also, litigants will not be able to directly approach the High Court "overlooking the jurisdiction of the tribunal".
12. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated again by the Constitution Bench (in L.Chandra Kumar case) in the penultimate para 99 at p.311 of the Report in the following words:
"99. ....... The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the 81 High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned."
42. The learned counsel also takes exception to the conduct of the petitioners who have participated in the process of selection. On getting lesser number of marks in the entrance test, they have challenged the notification, dated 18.1.2011. He further points out that the petitioners have also been given 30 marks pursuant to the introduction of the Rule 5A by virtue of the impugned notification. It is therefore not open to the petitioners to be fence-sitters and challenge the notification on realising that they are not likely to be selected.
43. Sri Sarathy would contend that there cannot be counseling after 31st May going by the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of MRIDUL DHAR (MINOR) AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MANAS RANJAN BEHERA AND OTHERS reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 and (2010) 1 SCC 173 respectively. He would therefore pray for the rejection of all the petitions on the ground of impermissibility of holding the counseling after 31st May.
82
44. Sri K.M.Nataraj, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State has taken the steps to depute all the general duty medical officers, who have completed 3 years of service irrespective of whether they are directly recruited or absorbed. To bring the absorbed doctors on par with the direct recruitees, the State amended Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009 with effect from 30.12.2011 by deleting the provisions containing the prohibition against the deputation of those absorbed doctors, who have not served for a minimum period of 6 years in rural areas after absorption.
45. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State also decided to give weightage to those doctors, who have served in the rural areas by inserting Rule 5A to PGET Rules. This is done to motivate the doctors to go to the rural areas and to stay back in the government service.
46. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the omission of the following clause "and shall not be deputed for higher studies during that period" from Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules do not suffer from any vice. If the date from which the omission comes into force is not specified, it has to be taken that the omitted part never existed on the statute. In effect, the Government's act of 83 omitting the prohibition does not make any difference. In this regard, he read out para 15 and 16 of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of INDIAN TOBACCO CO. LTD. v. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BHAVANIPORE AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1975 SC 155. The same are extracted hereinbelow:
"15. The general rule of construction is that the repeal of a repealing Act does not revive anything repealed thereby. But the operation of this rule is not absolute. It is subject to the appearance of a "different intention" in the repealing statute. Again, such intention may be explicit or implicit. The questions, therefore, that arise for determination are:
Whether in relation to cigarettes, the 1941 Act was repealed by the 1954 Act and the latter by the 1958 Act? Whether the 1954 Act and 1958 Act were repealing enactments? Whether there is anything in the 1954 Act and the 1958 Act indicating a revival of the 1941 Act in relation to cigarettes?
16. It is now well settled that "repeal" connotes abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely "as if it had never been passed"; when an act is repealed, "it must be considered (except as to transactions past and closed) as if it had never existed." (Per Tindal, C.J. in Kay v.
Goodwin, (1830) 6 Bing 576 at p.582 and Lord Tenterdon in Surtees v. Ellison, (1829) 9 B & C 750 at p.752) cited with approval in State of Orissa v. M.A.Tulloch and Co., AIR 1964 SC 1284."
84
47. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the validity of delegated legislation can be questioned only on two grounds.
a) If it violates any fundamental right.
b) If it is in violation of the parent statute under which it is made.
48. The Rules cannot be challenged the way that the administrative acts or executive circulars are challenged. It is the prerogative of the master to change the service conditions of its employees. As the malafides are not pleaded in the writ petition and as the impugned amendments to the Rules have not violated any of the rights of the in-service doctors, the challenge to the Rules is not entertainable.
49. He submits that there are no vested rights in favour of the petitioning doctors. Whether the in-service doctors are to be sent on deputation for higher courses after 3 years or 6 years falls within the realm of the policy-making of the Government.
50. Relying on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of KRISHNAN KAKKANTH v. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 9 SCC 465, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Government 85 policy cannot be struck down by the courts unless the policy is demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory or violative of constitutional or statutory provisions. In the said case, the Supreme Court has this to say in paragraph No.36 of its judgment:
"36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy."
51. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that what additional weightage has to be given to a doctor, who has served in the rural area, is again a policy decision of the Government. He would submit that the deliberations and notes preceding the introduction of 5A 86 discloses the weightage of 6 marks was proposed and a larger body after weighting pros and cons has collectively fixed the marks at 8. This is not the decision of any individual nor are such marks being allotted to favour any particular candidate.
52. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the earlier notification, dated 18.1.2011 introducing Rule 5A was withdrawn on 7.3.2011 as the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science ('RGUHS' for short) complained of the operational difficulty, as the admission process had already begun. On reconsidering the matter, the notification, dated 7.3.2011 was withdrawn on 7.4.2011 reviving the earlier notification, dated 18.1.2011. He would submit that reviving is virtually re-enactment. He also submits that the Government took the legal opinion before reviving the notification, dated 18.1.2011.
53. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the challenge to the amendments of the Rules relating to the omission of 6 years gestation period and the rural weightage is to be rejected on the short ground of the petitioners not filing the objections to the draft Rules.
54. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Government has the power to issue the notifications with the retrospective effect. Relying on the Apex Court's 87 judgment in the case of VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1990) 3 SCC 87, he contends that a Rule has to be deemed as a part of the statute itself. Therefore, the correctness of the Government's decision to give the weightage of 8 marks to the doctor, who has served in the rural area cannot be a subject matter of judicial review.
55. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Madhusudhan R. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the policy of the State can be challenged on the grounds of discrimination, arbitrariness and capriciousness. For repelling the Government's argument that the challenge to the legislative policy is not amenable to judicial review, he relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF T.N AND ANOTHER v. P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 517 and L.CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein it is held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226/227 and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
56. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the distinction has to be made between the repeal and omission. It is only the repeal, which dates back to the introduction of 88 the statute; the mere omission would not date back to the date of the introduction of a statute. It is all the more so, when the benefit had accrued to a party before issuing the notification of omission. In this regard, he has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of S.L.SRINIVASA JUTE TWINE MILLS (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2006) 2 SCC 740.
57. In response to the threshold objection raised by Sri Sarathy, it is the submission of Sri M.R.Naik that even when an alternative remedy is available, this Court cannot be said to be lacking in the jurisdiction. When the reliefs sought are interconnected and as there is joinder of causes of action, Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC applies.
58. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that as no cut-off date for the purpose of completion of 6 years of rural service is fixed either under the Absorption Rules or under the KSCR or in the notifications, the last date for the receipt of application has to be taken as the cut-off date. In this regard, he relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54. Para 11 of the said decision read by the learned Senior Counsel, is as follows: 89
"11. The question as to what should be the cut-off date in the absence of any date specified in this behalf either in the advertisement or in the reference is no longer res integra. It would be last date for filing application as would appear from the discussions made hereinafter. "
59. He submits that the seniority alone has to be considered for the purpose of deputation, as per Clause 5 of Appendix II of KCSR.
60. The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. The threshold objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions challenging the vires of the Rules affecting the conditions of service is to be considered first. The Apex Court in the case of Kailashnath (supra) has held that deputation is also a condition of service. The much debated condition is that the absorbed doctors shall not be deputed for higher studies for a period of six years is precisely a condition of service. Its omission from Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules, 2006 and 2007 is a condition of service. The litigants desirous of challenging the vires of the Rules governing the conditions of service cannot be permitted to approach this Court in the first instance by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra).
90
61. The validity of the Absorption Rules and the prayer for the termination of the services of the respondent Nos.5 to 124 in W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 are all the service matters and the petitioners in the said cases may have to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances.
62. However, the writ petitions can be entertained for the limited purpose of examining the other prayers made. The validity of the newly inserted Rule 5A to PGET Rules can be examined here because an in-service doctor cannot claim the seat as a matter of right. Getting a seat is not intrinsically connected with the conditions of service. In taking this view, I am fortified by this Court's decision in the case of Sunitha (supra).
63. Let me now examine as to whether the challenge to the amendment of PGET by way of insertion of Rule 5A can be examined at the instance of some of the petitioners. The amendment introduced to PGET Rules reads as follows:
"5A. Merit list of in-service candidates.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, while preparing the merit list of candidates in respect of in-service candidates working under the Directorate 91 of Health and Family Welfare Services, who has secured minimum qualifying marks, a weightage of four marks for each completed year of service beyond five years of service shall be added to the marks secured in the entrance test subject to a maximum of thirty marks.
Provided that for each completed year of rural service beyond five years of service, a weightage of eight marks shall be added to the marks secured in the entrance test in lieu of four marks subject to a maximum of thirty marks. No weightage shall be added for the service rendered below five years.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule, rural service means the service rendered in areas other than the areas falling within the limits of municipal corporation, city municipal council, town municipality, town panchayat established under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 as the case may be and upto such distance from these limits as may be notified by the State Government as urban area and includes the service rendered in rural areas under the contract period and rural service rendered under the rural weightage selection."
64. These Rules had come into force when the in-service doctors herein had submitted their applications for appearing for PGET and indeed appeared for the said test. Further, the petitioners in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 had also got the weightage of 4 marks for every completed 92 year of service beyond 5 years of service subject to the maximum of 30 marks. The same is by virtue of Rule 5A only.
65. The petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around and raise the challenge to the Rules, as and when it suits their convenience. In the case of Manish Kumar Shahi (supra), the Apex Court has taken the considered view that a candidate who has participated in the selection process and failed to qualify cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the process of selection.
66. In the case of Dhananjay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the candidates, who have unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur, are estopped from challenging the selection criterion.
67. In the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that a candidate cannot question the procedure when no minimum benchmark or a new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of the selection process.
68. For yet another reason too, I am disinclined to entertain the challenge to the validity of Rule 5A. It is not in dispute that the draft amendment to Rule 5 of the PGET Rules 93 proposing the insertion of Rule 5A was notified in the gazette. None of the petitioners or the respondent in-service doctors have filed the objections.
69. I am definitely not laying down any hard and fast rule that one cannot challenge the final notification without filing the objections to the draft notification. But, in the instant case, the petitioners' failure to file objections is coupled with their participation in the selection process and obtaining the weightage marks as per Rule 5A. The timing of their raising the challenge also cannot be ignored. They have approached this Court on knowing their position in the merit list. Such chance litigation cannot be encouraged. Their conduct disentitles them to any relief based on their challenge to Rule 5A.
70. The third and the last question that falls for my consideration is which one amongst the PGET Rules, KCSR and Absorption Rules would prevail over the other two in case of repugnancy or conflict amongst them?
71. The KCSR are the general Rules applying to all persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka.
94
72. The Absorption Rules are for the absorption of contract doctors in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services.
73. The PGET Rules are for the selection of the candidates for admission to the postgraduate medical and dental degree and diploma Courses.
74. When specific Rules are made governing the admission to postgraduate medical and dental degree and diploma courses, it is to be presumed that the situation is intended to be dealt with by the special Rules, which in the instant case are the PGET Rules. The special overrides the general. It is expressed in the maxim generalibus specialia derogant (special provisions override general ones). The converse principle is generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions do not override special ones).
75. In case of inconsistency between the provisions of two enactments, both of which can be regarded as special in nature, the conflict has to be resolved by referring to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments. In the instant case, the State Government's policy is to give equal opportunities to all the in-service doctors, who have completed three years of service irrespective of whether they 95 are directly recruited or absorbed. The additional weightage is also given to a doctor, who has served in the rural areas. The focus or the thrust appears to be on the health care in the rural sector.
76. I am also not persuaded to interfere on the ground that the posting of some doctors in the rural area is giving an unfair advantage to those, who are posted only in the rural areas. It is not the case of any in-service doctor that he is not posted to any rural area despite his request for the same. On the other hand, the rush appears only to be for the posting in the urban areas.
77. For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 and W.P.No.15366/2012. W.P.No.15365/2012 is dismissed as not pressed.
78. The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16337- 16349/2012 and W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811- 15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 is only over the circulars and the ranking list issued in the wake of the interim orders granted in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012. In the wake of the dismissal of the W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and 96 W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012, the ranking list has to be prepared in consonance with the impugned amendment to PGET Rules and the omission of the condition in Rule 3(2) of the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules. The circulars issued in the wake of the granting of the interim orders in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-366/2012 are also quashed. W.P.Nos.15807- 15810/2012 and 15811-15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 and W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 are allowed accordingly.
79. No arguments whatsoever are addressed in W.P.No.14430/2012. The petitioner's concerns stand substantially considered in terms of the order passed in the connected petitions. As far as the said petitioner's further grievance over the showing of the date erroneously as 18.12.2008 in the relieving order, instead of showing it correctly as 18.12.2007 is concerned, the second respondent hereby is directed to consider her representation, dated 17.4.2012 (Annexure-H) and pass appropriate orders thereon within four days. W.P.No.14430/2012 is accordingly disposed of.
80. As these petitions are filed by the in-service doctors appointed in different years and from different sources making the claims and counter-claims, the matter required considered 97 hearing. To ward off the confusion and uncertainity, I directed the maintenance of status quo in respect of the counseling, which has already taken place and stayed all further counseling proceedings. The same was by my interim order, dated 24.5.2012. As the interim order continued to be in force from 24.5.2012 till 8.6.2012, I deem it necessary and just to direct the extension of time for the completion of the counseling process for admission to postgraduate medical courses from the in-service category of doctors till 15.6.2012.
81 No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD