IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE ...judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF AUGUST,

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

W.A. Nos.2978-86 & 2987-96/2012 C/w 3004-3018/2012,

3020-34/2012 (EDN-RES)

W.A. Nos.2978-86 & 2987-96/2012

BETWEEN:

1. DR C M HANUMANTHARAJU S/O CHIKKAMUNIYARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC NAMAGONDLU GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR

2. DR. S. VENUGOPAL S/O L. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER L.H. HOSPITAL BANGALORE BANGALORE CITY

3. DR. B.R. RAJESH

S/O. RAMAPPA AGED 38 YEARS

R

2

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER GH HAGARIBOMANAHALI BELLARY DISTRICT

BELLARY

4. DR. RAJENDRA, s/O. SOMAPPA AGED 40 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC MARAVALI SHIKARIPURA TALUK

SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA

5. DR OM PRAKASH AMBURE S/O ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC PETA AMMAPURA YADAGIRI DISTRICT GULBARGA

6. DR S J MOHAN S/O S.B. JAGADEESH

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC MYSOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA

7. DR. O MALLAPPA S/O MUDIYAPPA AGED 38 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC ANTAGARAGANGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK

SHIMOGA DISTRICT

8. DR. B KIRAN KUMAR S/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC HIRISAVE CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK

3

HASSAN DISTRICT

9. DR. SHARANBASAVA

S/O M BASAVARAJ AGED 40 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC ANDOLA JEEVARGI TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT

10. DR. G.B. LINGARAJU S/O BASAVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER GH HOSANAGARA, HOSANAGARA TALUK

SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA

11. DR S SHASHANKA S/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PHC TAGGIKUPPE MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

12. DR. H. GIRADDI

S/O HANUMA REDDYAGED 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERB H RONA RONA, RONA TALUKGADAG DISTRICTGADAG

13. DR S C MASTIHOLI S/O.CHIGAPPAAGED 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MURAGODU SAVADATTITALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT

BELGAUM

4

14. DR C.S. SATHISH KUMARS/O C. S. NAYAKAGED 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC TALIKOTE, MUDDEBIHALTALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICTBIJAPUR

15. DR. M.S. JAYANTH

S/O LATE N. SIDDUAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSWORKING AS PSYCHIATRY TRAININGNIMHANS, BANGALORE

16. DR. A HARIPRASAD

S/O VENKAT RAJAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPRIMARY HEALTH CENTREINDANGI, KOPPAL

17. DR. RAJAKUMAR BIDARAKARS/O.ASHOK KUMARAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AT PHC, DIGGARCHITTAPUR TALUKGULBARGA DISTRICT

18. DR. SC PATILS/O CHANNA GOWDAAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSMEDICAL OFFICERPRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE

HOOLGER TALUKKOPPAL DISTRICT

19. DR KUMAR HS/O HUCHEGOWDAAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R/AT PHC, HOSURU, KR NAGAR TALUKMYSORE DISTRICT

5

... APPELLANTS

(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL

A/W. SRI.NITIN, ADV)

AND:

1. DR SIDDAPPA,AGED 37 YEARS

S/O BALAPPA NAIKOCC: MEDICAL OFFICER,20 BEDDED HOSPITALGOVERNMENT HOSPITAL RAMANAGARJOIDA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTKARWAR

2. DR SOMASHEKARA KABBERAAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSS/O LINGAPPA KWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABAD,

KOPPAL DISTRICTKOPPAL

3. MRS. GEETHA S MAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSW/O MAHADEV,

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRA, TQ: ANEKALDT: BANGALORE URBANBANGALORE URBAN

4. DR. GURUSWAMY

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSS/O LATE THIPPESWAMYWORKING AAS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC UJJINI, KUDLIGI TALUKBELLARY DISTRICT

5. DR. GIRIDHAR, AGED 37 YEARSS/O SHANTAMURTHY

6

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, JAGALURJAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT

DAVANGERE

6. DR. RAMESH, 37 YEARSS/O VITTAL RAOWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICTBANGALORE URBAN

7. DR. SHARANGOWDA PATILS/O CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, DEVADURGARAICHUR DISTRICTRAICHUR

8. DR. SHASHIDHAR

S/O A P RAJASHEKARAAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, DAGINAKATTEDAVANGERE DISTRICTDAVANGERE

9. DR. CHIKKAREDDY M LS/O LAKSHMAPPAAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, HUDLI,

TQ AND DT: BELGAUMBELGAUM

10. DR. ARUNS/O DAKSHINAMURTHYAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, VEMGAL

7

TK & DT: KOLARKOLAR

11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKADEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFAREVIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPALSECRETARY, BANGALOREBANGALORE CITY

12. THE COMMISSIONERHELATH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICESANAND RAO CIRCLEBANGALORE-560009BANGALORE CITY

13. THE DIRECTOR OFHEALTH AND FAMILY WELFAREDIRECTORATE OF HEALTH & FAMILYWELFARE SERVICESANAND RAO CIRCLE,

BANGALORE-560009BANGALORE CITY

14. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR

BANGALORE-41REP BY ITS REGISTRARBANGALOREBANGALORE CITY ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri : UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W. SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR C/R1 AND R2 TO R10 SRI. K.M. NATARAJ, ADDL. A.G. A/W. SRI. B. VEERAPPA, AGA. FOR R11 TO R13 SRI. N.K.RAMESH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R14)

8

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15807-10/12

& WP 15811-12/12 & WP 15813-16/12 DATED 8/6/12.

W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012

BETWEEN:

1. DR SONIA J VAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSW/O MANJUNATH

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-BANAWADIMAGADI TALUKRAMANAGAR DIST 562 112

2. DR. LOHITHA H M

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSS/O MAHESHWARAPPAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERDISTRICT HOSPITAL-CHIKKAMAGALURCHIKKAMAGALUR DIST 577 101

3. DR. MALLIKARJUNAAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSS/O S.S. KUBA KADDIWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC-TAVARAGERAKUSHTAGI TQ, KOPPAL DIST 584 121

4. DR. SHARANAMMA PATILAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSW/O GURULINGAPPA PATILWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERURBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP)

HEERAPURA, GULBARGA 585 101

9

5. DR. SANJEEV KUMARAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSS/O BALAGI SINGH

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KAVALURYADGIRI TQ AND DIST 585 201

6. DR VASANTH KUMAR L MAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

S/O L S MINIYAPPAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC-ARIKERAYADGIRI TQ AND DIST 585 201

7. DR B SRINIVASA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSS/O BEERAPPA DWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KANNALLI,BANGALORE URBAN 560 035

8. DR DIVYA KUMARI C TAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSW/O DR NAGESH K RWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KANCHANAHALLIHASSAN TQ AND HASSAN DT. 573 201

9. DR SUMA S RAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSW/O RAMESH RWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL HOSADURGA

HOSADURGA TQ,CHITRADURGA 577 527

10. DR A R NIRMALAAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSW/O SRIKANTH A N

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KONEGHATTA,

10

DODDABALLAPURA TQ,BANGALORE RURAL DIST, 561 203

11. DR VRUNDA PRABHU K MAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSD/O MOHAN PRABHUWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-MALLANDARUCHICKMAGALUR DIST 577 101

12. DR RAJU BAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSS/O BASAVEGOWDAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGH-HUNASURU

HUNASURU TQ, MYSORE DIST-577 105

13. DR SRINIVAS RAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSS/O RUDRAMUNI KWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC BOLIYARUD K DIST-575003

14. DR. SATHYAKNARAYAN RAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSS/O RANGE GOWDA

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC MADUVALAHIPPEH.N. PURA,HASSAN DIST 573 201

15. DR SURESH KUMAR H M

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSS/O H MARIYAPPAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-MANNE, NELAMANGALA TQ,BANGALORE RURAL-562123 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. M.N. NANJUNDAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL & SRI. M.R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR

11

SRI.REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKADEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDFAMILY WELFAREVIKASA SOUDHADR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BANGALOREREP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE COMMISSIONERHEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICESANANDARAO CIRCLE

BANGALORE 560 009

3. THE DIRECTOR OFHEALTH AND FAMILY WELFAREDIRECTORATE OF HEALTH ANDFAMILY WELFARESERVICES,

ANANDARAO CIRCLEBANGALORE-560 009

4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITYOF HEALTH SCIENCES4TH T BLOCK,

JAYANAGARBANGALORE 41REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

5. DR. SREERAM C JS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RAMAGIRI, HOLALKERE TQCHITRADURGA DIST-577 501

6. DR. SUDEEP KUMAR H C

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

12

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC CHIKKJOGIHALISHIKARIPURA TQ

SHIMOGA DIST-577 427

7. DR ARATHI M SD/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC MUDDAPURA,CHITRADURGA DIST-577501

8. DR MAHENDRA A RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SHETTIKERE, C.N. HALLI TQTUMKUR DIST-571428

9. DR SRIDHAR D RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC KUSHALNAGARCOORG DIST-571234

10. DR. ANANDA MANOHARA ZULKI

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITALBASAVANABAGEWADI TALUKBIJAPUR DIST-586 203

11. DR MANJUNATH HS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC D.S. HALLI (DODDA SIDDAVANAHALLI)

CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST-577 501

13

12. DR. VENUGOPAL K JS/O, LATE K M JAVARAIAHAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERURBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP-8) NEHRUNAGARBHADRAVATHI TQ,SHIMOGA DIST-577301

13. DR. GURUMURTHY H R

S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SAKRAYAPATNAKADUR TQ,CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577548

14. DR GEETH V KINAGIW/O, DR. SRINIVAS REDDY PATILAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL SEDAM,

GULBARGA DIST-585222

15. DR. SHASHIDHAR D KS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC-SHANTHIGRAMHASSAN TQ,HASSAN DIST-573201

16. DR. SURESH K NS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RANGAPURATIPTUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572201

17. DR. GIRISH KUMAR M N


14

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ARADESHANA HALLIDEVANAHALLI TQ,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562110

18. DR HANUMANTHARAJU C MS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC NAMAGONDLUGORIBIDANUR TQCHICKABALLAPUR DIST-562101

19. DR VENU GOPAL NS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERLEGISLATURE HOME DISPENSARYBANGALORE-560001

20. DR. SATHISH GANGAPPA KABADE

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TELSANGATHANI TQ,BELGAUM DIST-591304

21. DR. BALACHANDRA DS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DASANAKOPPA

SIRSI TQ,NORTHKANARA DIST-581401

22. DR. RAJESH B RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL

15

HAGARABOMMANAHALLIH.B.HALLI TQ,BELLARI DIST-583212

23. DR JAGADESH KS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DANDINASHIVARA

TURVEKERE TQ,TUMKUR DIST-572227

24. DR MARULA SIDDAPPA P MS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC MALEBENNURMALEBENNUR TQ,DAVANGERE DIST-577530

25. DR KUSUMA

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RAJENDRANAGAR,MYSORE DIST-570001

26. DR RAJENDRAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MARAVALLISHIKARIPURA TQ

SHIMOGA DIST-577427

27. DR GIRISH P BS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KALGERECHITRADURGA DIST-577501

16

28. DR. SHIVANA GOUDA PATIL, MAJORS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-HULIGERIKUSHTAGI TQ,KOPPAL DIST-584121

29. DR. KUMARASWAMY M. YETTINAMATH

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ASUNDISOUNDATTTI TQ-590001BELGAUM DIST

30. DR. MOHAN KUMAR CS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SRINGERE

CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577139

31. DR. OMPRAKASH ASHOK AMBURES/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC PETAMMAPURSURAPURA TALUK YADGIRI DISTRICT-585201

32. DR. VENU GOPAL K LS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC PANDOMATTICHANNAGERE TALUKDAVANAGERE DISTRICT–577 213

33. DR. MOHAN S J


17

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MYDOLALUBHADRAVATHI TQ-577301

SHIMOGA DIST

34. DR JAFAR SADIK FAQIRUDIN SAYEDS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KANAMADIBIJAPUR DIST-586101

35. DR. MALKAJAYYAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-SINDHANURSINDHANUR TQRAICHUR DIST-584101

36. DR KIRAN KUMAR B

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC HIRISAVEC.R. PATNA TQHASSAN DIST-573201

37. DR SHAMMI HS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HALEKOTE

H.N. PURA TQHASSAN DIST-573201

38. DR. SHARANA BASAVAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ANDOLA

18

JEWARGI TQ,GULBARGA DIST-585310

39. DR. BANADESHWARA (BASAVESHWARA) GOBBURS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KOPPARDEVADURGA TQ, RAICHUR DIST

40. DR. MANJUNATH SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ALAKAPURA, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,

CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-562101

41. DR. SANGANNA L LAKKANNAVARS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

DISTRICT SURVELLIANCE OFFICER,BIJAPUR-586101

42. DR. T.L.N KUMARIS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TIPTURGUBBI TQ,TUMKUR DIST-572216

43. DR. ANIL KUMAR

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GUNJAHALLIRAICHUR TQ,RAICHUR DIST-584101

44. DR. GOPAL GOVINDA HARAGI

19

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC- KORLKAISIDDAPURA TQ,UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581355

45. DR MOHAN KUMAR S KS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RANGANATHAPURAHIRIYUR TQCHITRADURGA DIST-572143

46. DR. MAHESH B. MORES/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUSTURUGANGAVATHI TQ,

KOPPAL DIST-583227

47. DR. SATHISH BABU RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KAGGALAD HUNDIGUNDLUPET TQ,CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571111

48. DR SHASHANKA SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TAGGIKUPPEMAGADI TQ,RAMANAGARA DIST-562120

49. DR. HANUMA RADDI GIRADI. L, MAJORS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

20

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL RON,GADAG DIST-582101

50. DR. MOHAN KUMAR G MS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KULAMBI

HONNALI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST-577217

51. DR KUMAR HS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HOSURK R NAGAR TQMYSORE DIST-571602

52. DR. GIRISH SIDAGONDAPPA PATIL

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC UKKALIBAGEWADI TQBIJAPUR DIST-586101

53. DR RAJKUMAR A. BIDARKARS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DIGGOUN


54. DR. NAGARAJS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC HADADIDAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST-577001

21

55. DR. HARIPRASAD AS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC INDARGIKOPPAL TQ,KOPPAL DIST-583231

56. DR. ROOPA C YS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KANDAGALDAVANGERE TQ

DAVANGERE DIST-577001

57. DR. DEPALI TELSANGS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC YEDIYURKUNIGAL TQTUMKUR DIST-572130

58. DR. MASTI HOLI SHIVANANDA CHIGAPPAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MURGODSOUNDATTI TQBELGAUM DIST-590001

59. DR. MADHUSUDHANS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ADAGURK R NAGAR TQ

MYSORE DIST-571602

22

60. DR. JAGADISH BIRADARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC MUDEBIHALMUDEBIHAL TQ,BIJAPUR DIST-586212

61. DR. RAJESH S T

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RAYEEBANTWAL TQ,DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211

62. DR. ASHOK MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BANDIHOLE

KRISHNARAJAPET TQ,MANDYA DIST-571426

63. DR. RAMESH M CS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ALILAGHATTAGUBBI TQ,TUMKUR DIST-572216

64. DR. LAKSHMIDEVI G B

W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL MUNDEGOODMUNDUGOD TQ,UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581349

65. DR. JAYANTH M S

23

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHYSCHIATRY TRAINING AT NIMHANS, BLORER/A:NO.657, 17TH MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570001

66. DR. MURALIDHARA P DS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DEVARABELAKEREHARIHARA TQ,DAVANGERE DIST-577601

67. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMARS/O. DR V. S. BUTTEAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL,AURAD,

BIDAR DIST-585401

68. DR. SIDDAPPA BALAPPA NAYAKS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

20 BEDDED HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA,JOIDA TQ,KARWAR DIST-581186

69. DR. ARUNKUMAR DS/O, DAKSHINA MURTHY

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC VEMAGALKOLAR TQ,KOLAR DIST-563101

70. DR. GIRIDHARA S AS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

24

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS LSAS (LIFE SAVING ANESTHETICSKILL) SPECIALIST AT

TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-HARIHARAHARIHARA TQ, DAVANGERE DIST-577601

71. DR. SOMASHEKHARA KABBERAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABADKOPPAL TQKOPPAL DIST-583231

72. DR. RAVIKUMAR B V

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BALLALA SAMUDRAHOSADURGA TQCHITRADURGA DIST-577527

73. DR. GURUSWAMY N TS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-UJJINI

KUDLIGI TQ,BELLARY DIST-583135

74. DR. GEETHA S MW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRAANEKAL TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106

75. DR. DEVARAJA G N

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

25

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ETHINAVEERAINA KOTTIGECHITRADURGA-577501

76. DR. FARUQ JUNEDAS/O, MOHAMMED ILYESAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DHARADAHALLI,

MUDIGERE TQCHICKMAGALUR DIST-577132

77. DR. KRISHNA PRASADS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC SANEMARHALLICHAMARAJANAGAR TQ, DIST-577132

78. DR. SRIKANTH B PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MULLURHUNSUR TQ,MYSORE DIST-571105

79. DR. SHARANAGOUDA CHANDRASHEKAR PATILS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSGOVT. HOSPITALDEVADURGA,RAICHUR DIST-584101

80. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR V SS/O, V.L. SRINIVASAIAH SHETTYAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BYRAKURA

MULBAGAL TQKOLAR DIST-563131

26

81. DR. MANJUNATH LAXMAPPA CHICKARADDIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HUDALIBELGAUM TQ,BELGAUM DIST-590001

82. DR. SHASHIDHARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DAGINAKATTECHANNAGIRI TQ,


83. DR. REVANNA SIDDA B HS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC HANUMANALKUSHTAGI TQKOPPAL DIST-584127

84. DR. RAMESH VS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRAANEKAL TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106

85. DR. LEELAVATHY. NW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL-MUNDARAGIMUNDARAGI TQ, GADAG DIST-582118

86. DR. GURURAJ K J

27


PHC-GUKUNTEMULABAGILU TQ,KOLAR DIST-563131

87. DR. MALLIKARJUNA M PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KUPPAGADDESORABA TALUK,SHIMOGA DIST-577429

88. DR. S R CHANDRIK BABUS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BILIKEREHUNSUR TQ,

MYSORE DIST-571105

89. DR. ARUNA PATILW/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGIBELLARY DIST-583135

90. DR. RAVI B SW/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BILIKISHIKARIPURA TQ,SHIMOGA DIST-577427

91. DR. JYOTHI S KHANDRE

W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

28

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, BELURABASAVAKALYANA TQ

BIDAR DIST-585401

92. DR. VENKATESHA M PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC Y N HOSAKETEPAVAGADA TQ,TUMKUR DIST-561202

93. DR. GEETHA D HW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KUSANURUHANAGAL TQ,HAVERI DIST-581104

94. DR. MAHADEVAPRASAD SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KOTHEGALAHUNSUR TQ

MYSORE DIST-571105

95. DR. SUDHINDRA G BS/O, BASAVARAJAPPA J SAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC GOPANAHALLYCHALLAKERE TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST-577522

96. DR. SHANKAR NAIK NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

29

PHU MADHIHALLIHARAPANAHALLI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST

97. DR. AMMA ARUNACHALA HEGDEW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HIRIADAKA

UDUPI TQ, UDUPI DIST-576101

98. DR. NAVEEN KUMAR H BS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC YALLAMBALASEKADUR TQ,CHICKAMANGALORE DIST-577548

99. DR. CHAITRA N RAMDAS VERNEKARW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERHEALTH CENTRE RAJYOTSANAGARA,BELLARY TQ,BELLARY DIST-583101

100. DR. K T SRIDHARAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHU, HIREKODAGIKOPPA TQ,

CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577548

101. DR. SUDHINDRANATH S RS/O RANGANATH S KAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KOLADEVIMULBAGAL TQ

30

KOLAR DIST-563131

102. DR. SUKUMARA A

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC AGRAMMULBAGAL TQ,KOLAR DIST-563131

103. DR. BASAVARAJ HANUMANTHAPPA THALWARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL KANAPURA

BELGAUM DIST-590001

104. DR. VISVANATHA REDDY M SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC, HIRESINDGOGIKOPPAL TQ,KOPPAL DIST-583231

105. DR. VENKATESH YS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL-HUNGUND,BAGALKOT DIST-587118

106. DR. RAVINDRA GOUDAPPA PATIL

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HUNASIKATTI,BAILHONGA TQ,BELGAUM DIST-591102

107. DR. T. MAHENDRA KUMAR

31


PHC MUDUGERECHANNAPATNA TQ, RAMNAGAR DIST-571501

108. DR. MURUGESH KS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DADADAHALLI,HD KOTE TQ,MYSORE DIST-571125

109. DR. UDHAYASHANKAR S K

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-GUDDADARANGEVVANAHALLI,CHITRADURGA DIST-577501

110. DR. JYOTHIW/O, DR. K BOREGOWDAAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SATHANURMANDYA DIST-571401

111. DR. RAVINDRA NAIK KS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHU SAMPIGE, TURUVEKERE TQ,

TUMKUR DIST-572227

112. DR. MAMATHA B SW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC ARASAPURA,HARAPANAHALLI TQ,

32


113. DR. NANDAKUMAR

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ANWARILINGASUGUR TQ,RAICHUR DIST-584122

114. DR. SHASHIKALA RW/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAKKERA

SHORAPUR TQ,YADGIR DIST-585224

115. DR. RADHA HW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUTHAGADOORUHOLALKERE TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST-577526

116. DR. VENKATESH P KALAPUR

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-ALANDGULBARGA DIST-585101

117. DR. KIRAN CS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HANBALSAKLESHPUR TQ,

HASSAN DIST-573134

33

118. DR. RAGHAVENDRA W KULKARNIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KODLASEDAM TQ,GULBARGA DIST-585222

119. DR. SRIKANTH MALLAPPA SAMBRANI

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, ALNAVAR, DHARWAD DIST-580001

120. DR. PRIYADARSHINI N

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERINDIA POPULATION PROJECT-9HEALTH CENTREASHOKNAGAR,


121. DR. SUBODH KUMAR RAI GS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC ADYANADKABANTWAL TQ,DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211

122. DR. RAVINDRA R ANTEENS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC AKKATHANGERAHALAGOKAK TQ, BELGAUM DIST-591307

123. DR. NEELESH M N

S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

34

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GUDDADA KOMARANAHALLICHANNAGERE TQ,

DAVANGIRI DIST-577213

124. DR. SRINIVASA M DEVADURGAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC NARONAALANDA TQ,GULBARGA DIST-585302

125. DR. SHANTHAKUMAR K VS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITALH.D. KOTE,MYSORE DIST-571125

126. DR. LAXMISH NAIKS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BANKIKODLAKUMTA TQ

UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581343

127. DR. KAVITHA KW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC-HANAGALHANAGAL TQ,HAVERI DIST-581104

128. DR. SYEEDA AFIYA YASMEEND/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT


35

PHC KONKALYADGIR TQ, YADGIR DIST-585201

129. DR. RASHMI M ND/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC, MOODBIDRI,CHICKAMAGALUR DIST-577101

130. DR. LOKESHA C MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC AGILE,

HASSAN TQ,HASSAN DIST-573201

131. DR. PADMAVATHI MW/O, K HARISHAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC AVATHIDEVANAHALLI TQ, BANGALORE-562110

132. DR. SHIVAKUMAR LS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SATTEGALKOLLEGALA TQ,CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571440

133. DR. PUTTAPPA S RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MADALUARASIKERE TQ,

HASSAN DIST-573103

36

134. DR. HOYISALA H NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SALAGAMEHASSAN TQHASSAN DIST-573201

135. DR. JAGADEESH K JINIGI

S/O, K B JINIGIAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DESHNURBAILHONGAL TQBELGAUM DIST-591102

136. DR. MANJUNATHAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TERAGAON

HALIYAL TQ,U.K. DIST-581329

137. DR. NAGARAJS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITALBASAVAKALYAN,BIDAR DIST-585327

138. DR. MAHESH H S

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HOSAKEREMADHUGERE TQ,TUMKUR DIST-572132

139. DR. DHANALAKSHMI D P

37


PHC BELEGERETIPTUR TQ,TUMKUR DIST-572201

140. DR. PRAVEEN A SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GOWDIHALLIHOLAKERE TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST-577526

141. DR. MADHUSUDHAN M RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC SARAGURUHD KOTE TQ,

MYSORE DIST-571125

142. DR. DAYAMANI BS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC SIDDAPURA KADUGONDAHALLIBANGALORE WEST TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST-560045

143. DR. SARALA H SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KONEHALLIDODDABALLAPURA TQ,BANGALORE RURAL DIST-561203

144. DR. VISHWAJITH NAYAKS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

38

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KUNDANA

DEVANAHALLI TQBANGALORE TQ-562110

145. DR. PARAMESHWAR SURESH KENCHANNAVARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUNAVALLISAUNDATTI TQ, BELGAUM DIST-591126

146. DR. VIKAS PARAPPA SAVADIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDAKAVIRAMADURGA TQ,BELGAUM DIST-591123

147. DR. VIJAY KUMAR HS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC YELAKETHANEHALLINELAMANGALA TQ

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562123

148. DR. MOHAMMED YOUSNUS SALEEMS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KONKALYADGIR TQYADGIR DIST-585201

149. DR. SHIVAKUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT


39

PHC THONDEBHAVIGOWRIBIDANUR TQ,CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-562101

150. DR. SHASHIKUMAR S DS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC D K HALLI

MALAVALLI TQ,MANDYA DIST-571430

151. DR. RAJKUMAR RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MANIGANAHALLIMAGADI TQ,RAMANAGARA DIST-562120

152. DR. MALLIKARJUNA G P

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC JADESORABA TQSHIMOGA DIST-577429

153. DR. SANTHOSH A NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC SIRIGERE

CHITRADURGA DIST-577541

154. DR. K SATHISH BABUS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC ELLODUGUDDIBANDE TQ,

40

CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-561209

155. DR. MEEAN KUMARI T D

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDENURAKUSTAGI TQ,KOPPAL DIST-584121

156. DR. GEETHA N SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,PHC M C HALLI,

TARIKERE TQ, CHICKMAGALUR TQ – 577 101.

157. DR. A RAMUS/O G.ANAJANAIAH,AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,

PHC., SOMAYAJALAHALLI.,SRINIVASAPUR TQ, KOLAR DIST – 563 135.

158. DR ANITHA N SW/O, DR.PUTTEGOWDA T,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KODDIHALLI KOPPALUHASSAN DIST – 573 201.

159. DR. BHARATHI PW/O DR. MAHESH M

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAMAGERE, KOLLEGAL TQ,CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST – 571 443.

160. DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD T C


41

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KALLANAKUPPERAMANAGAR DIST – 571 511

161. DR. ANASUYA MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC N G HALLI TQ

CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501.

162. DR. NAVEEN RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC (EXTENSION UNIT) DODDAPALANAHALLIYELERAMPURAKORATAGERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST – 572 129.

163. DR. BHANUMATHI P MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDALAHIPPEHOLENARASIPURA TQ,HASSAN DIST – 573 211

164. DR. SUCHETHA K RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KADUSONNAPPANAHALLIBANGALORE EAST TQ – 562 149

BANGALORE URBAN DIST.

165. DR.VEENA H ND/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC TOPASANDRARAMANAGARA DIST – 562 112

42

166. DR.DHANYA KUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KADANURDODDABALLAPURA TQ,BANGALORE RURAL DIST – 561 203

167. DR. RAGHAVENDRA G SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUTTODU, HOSADURGA TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 527.

168. DR. RAVI KANTHIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAMALAPURA,

GULBARGA TQ/DIST – 582 101.

169. KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTICS MINORITY,PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES ASSOCIATION, FLATNO.143, 4TH FLOOR,SURYAMUKHI, GARDEN APARTMENTS,

# 21, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD,BANGALORE – 560 055,BY ITS CONVENER.

170. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL ENGINEERING ANDDENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA,

# 132, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN,17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAMBANGALORE – 560 055,BY ITS CONVENER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W.

SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR C/R-63, R68 TO R71, R73, R82, R86 AND R95

43

SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, ADV. FORM/S. P.S.RAJAGOPAL ASSTS. HAS BEENPUT UP WITH W.A.NO.3020/12, & CP.NO.345/12,

SRI. RAVIVERMAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W.SRI. V.R.SARATHY, ADV. FOR R7, R8 & R16.)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE

THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15417/12 &

15636-664/12 DATED 8/6/12

W.A.Nos.3020-34/2012:

BETWEEN:

1. DR. GEETHA PRIYA PAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSW/O SUBINDHWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC-K.M DODDI,MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DIST – 571 428.

2. DR JAYANTHI RAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSW/O DEVADASS R

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-SIDDAGANGA MATHATUMKUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST – 572 101

3. DR. MAHADEVA NAYAKAAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

S/O GOPALA NAYAKAWORKING AS DIST. SURV. OFFICERDSO-CHAMARAJANAGARCHAMARAJANAGAR TQ DIST – 571 313

4. DR G S SRIDHAR

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,S/O G T SUBBE GOWDA

44

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERSCHC-UDAYAPURAC R PATNA TQ, HASSAN DIST – 573 201

5. DR H K RAMESHAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSS/O KENCHAPPAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC - KODIHALLI

KANAKAPURA TALUK,RAMANAGAR DIST – 562 112

6. DR. SATHISH M KAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSS/O KENCHAPPA

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERMSDM-HOSPITAL KOPPACHIKKAMAGALORE DIST – 577 101

7. DR GEETHA K BAGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

W/O MANJU PRAKASHWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-LAGGEREBANGALORE NORTH TALUKBANGALORE URBAN DIST – 560 058

8. DR NAGAPPA G SAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSS/O SHIVANNAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC- RAYAKOPPALUALUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST – 573 201.

9. DR D N NAGALAKSHMIAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSW/O SRIKANTH P CWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC- KOWSHIKA

HASSAN TQ/DIST – 573 201.

45

10. DR BRAHMENDRA MAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSS/O M MARISWAMY

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERDISTRICT HOSPITAL,CHAMARAJANAGARCHAMARAJANAGAR DIST – 571 313

11. DR PARAVEEN KUMAR C H

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSS/O RAGHUVEER C HWORKING AS DISTRICTFAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,DHO OFFICE,BANGALORE RURAL – 560 001

12. DR CHENNAKESHAVA S PAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSS/O LATE PAPPA SETTAPPAWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-THOVINAKERE.

KORATAGERE TQTUMKUR DIST – 571 428

13. DR G R RAMESHAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSS/O RAMAKRISHNAYYA

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERADD. DIST. TB CENTRE-SIRA,SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST – 571 428.

14. DR. SAKHARAM SHETTYAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

S/O SHANKAR SHETTYWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-BELAWADICHIKKAMAGALUR TQ AND DIST – 577 101.

15. DR C SUVARNA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARSW/O. P B PRAKASH

46

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KUDLAPURANANJANGUD TALUK,

MYSORE DIST – 571 301. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI: M.N.NANJUNDAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL & SRI. M.R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKADEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANDFAMILY WELFAREVIKASA SOUDHA

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE – 560 001REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONERHEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES

ANANDARAO CIRCLEBANGALORE – 560 009

3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTHAND FAMILY WELFAREDIRECTORATE OF HEALTH

AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,ANANDARAO CIRCLE,BANGALORE – 560 009.

4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OFHEALTH SCIENCES

4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,BANGALORE – 41,REPTD. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

5. DR.SREERAM C JS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

47

PHC RAMAGIRI, HOLALKERE TQCHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501.

6. DR. SUDEEP KUMAR H CS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC CHIKKJOGIHALISHIKARIPURA TQ

SHIMOGA DIST – 577 427

7. DR ARATHI M SD/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC MUDDAPURA,CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501

8. DR MAHENDRA A RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SHETTIKERE, C.N. HALLI TQTUMKUR DIST – 571 428

9. DR SRIDHAR D RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC KUSHALNAGARCOORG DIST – 571 234

10. DR. ANANDA MANOHARA ZULKI

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITALBASAVANABAGEWADI TALUKBIJAPUR DIST – 586 203

11. DR MANJUNATH H

48


PHC D.S. HALLI (DODDA SIDDAVANAHALLI)CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST – 577 501

12. DR. VENUGOPAL K JS/O, LATE K M JAVARAIAHAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERURBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP-8) NEHRUNAGARBHADRAVATHI TQ, SHIMOGA DIST – 577 301.

13. DR. GURUMURTHY H RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SAKRAYAPATNAKADUR TQ, CHICKMAGALUR DIST – 577 548

14. DR GEETHA.V.KINAGI

W/O, DR. SRINIVAS REDDY PATILAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL SEDAM,GULBARGA DIST – 585 222

15. DR. SHASHIDHAR D KS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC-SHANTHIGRAMHASSAN TQ, HASSAN DIST – 573 201

16. DR. SURESH K NS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RANGAPURA

TIPTUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST – 572 201

49

17. DR. GIRISH KUMAR K NS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ARADESHANA HALLIDEVANAHALLI TQ,BANGALORE RURAL DIST – 562 110

18. DR HANUMANTHARAJU C M

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC NAMAGONDLUGORIBIDANUR TQCHICKABALLAPUR DIST – 562 101

19. DR VENU GOPAL NS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERLEGISLATURE HOME DISPENSARY

BANGALORE – 560 001

20. DR. SATHISH GANGAPPA KABADES/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC TELSANGATHANI TQ, BELGAUM DIST – 591 304

21. DR. BALACHANDRA DS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DASANAKOPPASIRSI TQ, NORTHKANARA DIST – 581 401

22. DR. RAJESH B RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT


50

TALUK GENERAL HOSPITALHAGARABOMMANAHALLIH.B.HALLI TQ, BELLARY DIST – 572 227

23. DR JAGADESH KS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DANDINASHIVARA

TURVEKERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST – 572 227

24. DR MARULA SIDDAPPA P MS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC MALEBENNURMALEBENNUR TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 577 530

25. DR KUSUMAW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RAJENDRANAGAR,MYSORE DIST - 570001

26. DR RAJENDRA

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 47 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MARAVALLISHIKARIPURA TQSHIMOGA DIST – 577 427

27. DR GIRISH P BS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KALGERE

CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501

51

28. DR. SHIVANA GOUDA PATILS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGE : MAJOR,

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-HULIGERIKUSHTAGI TQ, KOPPAL DIST – 584 121

29. DR. KUMARASWAMY M YETTINAMATHS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ASUNDI, SOUNDATTTI TQ,BELGAUM DIST – 590 001

30. DR. MOHAN KUMAR C

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SRINGERECHICKMAGALUR DIST – 577 139

31. DR. OMPRAKASH ASHOK AMBURES/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC PEAMMAPURSURAPURA TQ, YADGIRI DIST – 585 201

32. DR. VENU GOPAL K LS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC PANDOMATTI

CHANNAGERE TQDAVANAGERE DIST – 577 213

33. DR. MOHAN S JS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MYDOLALU

52

BHADRAVATHI TQSHIMOGA DIST – 577 301

34. DR JAFAR SADIK FAQIRUDIN SAYEDS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KANAMADI, BIJAPUR DIST – 586 101

35. DR. MALKAJAYYAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-SINDHANURSINDHANUR TQ, RAICHUR DIST – 584 101

36. DR KIRAN KUMAR BS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC HIRISAVE

C.R. PATNA TQ, HASSAN DIST – 573 201

37. DR SHAMMI HW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC HALEKOTEH.N. PURA TQ, HASSAN DIST – 573 201

38. DR. SHARANA BASAVAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ANDOLAJEWARGI TQ, GULBARGA DIST – 585 310

39. DR. BANADESHWARA (BASAVESHWARA) GOBBURS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT


53

PHC KOPPARDEVADURGA TQ, RAICHUR DIST – 584 101

40. DR. MANJUNATH SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ALAKAPURA, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,CHICKBALLAPUR DIST – 562 101

41. DR. SANGAMMA L LAKKANNAVARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERDISTRICT SURVELLIANCE OFFICER,

BIJAPUR – 586 101

42. DR. T.L.N KUMARIW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 48 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC TIPTUR, GUBBI TQ,TUMKUR DIST – 572 216

43. DR. ANIL KUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GUNJAHALLIRAICHUR TQ, RAICHUR DIST – 584 101

44. DR. GOPAL GOVINDA HARAGIS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KORLKAI, SIDDAPURA TQ,UTTARA KANNADA DIST – 581 355

45. DR MOHAN KUMAR S K


54

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC RANGANATHAPURAHIRIYUR TQ


46. DR. MAHESH B MORES/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC MUSTURU, GANGAVATHI TQ,KOPPAL DIST – 583 227

47. DR. SATHISH BABU RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAGGALAD HUNDIGUNDLUPET TQ,CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST – 571 111

48. DR SHASHANKA S

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TAGGIKUPPE, MAGADI TQ,RAMANAGARA DIST – 562 120

49. DR. HANUMA RADDI GIRADI LS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGE : MAJOR,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL RON,GADAG DIST – 582 101

50. DR. MOHAN KUMAR G MS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KULAMBI, HONNALI TQ,

DAVANGERE DIST – 577 217

55

51. DR KUMAR HS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HOSUR, K R NAGAR TQMYSORE DIST – 571 602

52. DR. GIRISH SIDAGONDAPPA PATILS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC UKKALI, BAGEWADI TQ,BIJAPUR DIST – 586 101

53. DR RAJKUMAR A BIDARKAR

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DIGGOUNGULBARGA DIST – 585 101

54. DR. NAGARAJS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HADADIDAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST – 577 001

55. DR. HARIPRASAD AS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC INDARGI, KOPPAL TQ,

KOPPAL DIST – 583 231

56. DR. ROOPA C YW/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KANDAGAL, DAVANGERE TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 577 001

56

57. DR. DEPALI TELSANGW/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC YEDIYUR, KUNIGAL TQ,TUMKUR DIST

58. DR. MASTI HOLI SHIVANANDA CHIGAPPA

S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MURGOD, SOUNDATTI TQ,BELGAUM DIST – 590 001

59. DR. MADHUSUDHANS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ADAGUR, K R NAGAR TQMYSORE DIST – 571 602

60. DR. JAGADISH BIRADARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC MUDEBIHAL, MUDEBIHAL TQ,

BIJAPUR DIST – 586 212.

61. DR. RAJESH S TS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 42 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC RAYEE, BANTWAL TQ,DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST – 574 211

62. DR. ASHOK MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BANDIHOLE, KRISHNARAJAPET TQ,

57

MANDYA DIST – 571 426

63. DR. RAMESH M C

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ALILAGHATTA, GUBBI TQ,TUMKUR DIST – 572 216

64. DR. LAKSHMIDEVI G BW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK HOSPITAL MUNDEGODMUNDUGOD TQ,

UTTARA KANNADA DIST – 581 349.

65. DR. JAYANTH M SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 46 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHYSCHIATRY TRAINING AT NIMHANS,BANGLORE, R/A:NO.657, 17TH MAIN ROAD,SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE – 570 001

66. DR. MURALIDHARA P DS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DEVARABELAKEREHARIHARA TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 577 601

67. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMARS/O, DR V. S. BUTTEAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL,AURAD, BIDAR DIST – 585 401

68. DR. SIDDAPPA BALAPPA NAYAK

58

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

20 BEDDED HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA,JOIDA TQ, KARWAR DIST – 581 186

69. DR. ARUNKUMAR DS/O, DAKSHINA MURTHYAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC VEMAGAL, KOLAR TQ,KOLAR DIST – 563 101

70. DR. GIRIDHARA S AS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS LSAS (LIFE SAVING ANESTHETICSKILL) SPECIALIST ATTALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-HARIHARAHARIHARA TQ, DAVANGERE DIST – 577 601

71. DR. SOMASHEKHARA KABBERAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABADKOPPAL TQ, KOPPAL DIST – 583 231

72. DR. RAVIKUMAR B VS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BALLALA SAMUDRA

HOSADURGA TQCHITRADURGA DIST – 577 527

73. DR. GURUSWAMY N TS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-UJJINI, KUDLIGI TQ,

59

BELLARY DIST – 583 135

74. DR. GEETHA S M

W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRAANEKAL TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 562 106

75. DR. DEVARAJA G NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ETHINAVEERAINA KOTTIGE

CHITRADURGA – 577 501

76. DR. FARUQ JUNEDAS/O, MOHAMMED ILYESAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC DHARADAHALLI,MUDIGERE TQCHICKMAGALUR DIST – 577 132

77. DR. KRISHNA PRASADS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC SANEMARHALLICHAMARAJANAGAR TQ, DIST – 571 313

78. DR. SRIKANTH B P

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MULLUR, HUNSUR TQ,MYSORE DIST – 571 105

79. DR. SHARANAGOUDA CHANDRASHEKAR PATILS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

60

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGOVT. HOSPITAL DEVADURGA,

RAICHUR DIST – 584 101

80. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR V SS/O, V.L. SRINIVASAIAH SHETTYAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC BYRAKURA MULBAGAL TQKOLAR DIST – 563 131

81. DR. MANJUNATH LAXMAPPA CHICKARADDIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HUDALI, BELGAUM TQ,BELGAUM DIST – 590 001

82. DR. SHASHIDHARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DAGINAKATTE, CHANNAGIRI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 577 213

83. DR. REVANNA SIDDA B H

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HANUMANAL, KUSHTAGI TQKOPPAL DIST – 584 127

84. DR. RAMESH VS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 562 106

85. DR. LEELAVATHY. N

61

W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

TALUK HOSPITAL-MUNDARAGIMUNDARAGI TQ, GADAG DIST – 582 118

86. DR. GURURAJ K JS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-GUKUNTE, MULABAGILU TQ,KOLAR DIST – 563 131

87. DR. MALLIKARJUNA M PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KUPPAGADDE, SORABA TALUK,SHIMOGA DIST – 577 429

88. DR. S R CHANDRIK BABU

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BILIKERE, HUNSUR TQ,MYSORE DIST – 571 105

89. DR. ARUNA PATILW/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGIBELLARY DIST – 583 135

90. DR. RAVI B SW/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BILIKI, SHIKARIPURA TQ,

SHIMOGA DIST – 577 427

62

91. DR. JYOTHI S KHANDREW/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, BELURA, BASAVAKALYANA TQ,BIDAR DIST – 585 401

92. DR. VENKATESHA M PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC Y N HOSAKETE, PAVAGADA TQ,TUMKUR DIST

93. DR. GEETHA D H

W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KUSANURU, HANAGAL TQ,HAVERI DIST – 581 104

94. DR. MAHADEVAPRASAD SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KOTHEGALA, HUNSUR TQ,MYSORE DIST – 571 105

95. DR. SUDHINDRA G BS/O, BASAVARAJAPPA J SAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GOPANAHALLY

CHALLAKERE TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 522

96. DR. SHANKAR NAIK NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHU MADHIHALLI

63

HARAPANAHALLI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 583 131

97. DR. AMNA ARUNACHALA HEGDEW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HIRIADAKAUDUPI TQ, UDUPI DIST – 576 101

98. DR. NAVEEN KUMAR H BS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC YALLAMBALASE, KADUR TQ,

CHICKAMANGALORE DIST -

99. DR. CHAITRA N RAMDAS VERNEKARW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

HEALTH CENTRE RAJYOTSANAGARA,BELLARY TQ,BELLARY DIST

100. DR. K T SRIDHARAS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHU, HIREKODAGIKOPPA TQ,CHICKMAGALUR DIST – 577 548

101. DR. SUDHINDRANATH S RS/O RANGANATH S KAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KOLADEVI, MULBAGAL TQKOLAR DIST – 563 131

102. DR. SUKUMARA A

64


PHC AGRAM, MULBAGAL TQ,KOLAR DIST – 563 131

103. DR. BASAVARAJ HANUMANTHAPPA THALWARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL KANAPURABELGAUM DIST – 590 001

104. DR. VISVANATHA REDDY M SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC, HIRESINDOGI, KOPPAL TQ,KOPPAL DIST – 583 231

105. DR. VENKATESH Y

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL-HUNGUND,BAGALKOT DIST – 587 118.

106. DR. RAVINDRA GOUDAPPA PATILS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HUNASIKATTI, BAILHONGA TQ,BELGAUM DIST – 591 102

107. DR. T. MAHENDRA KUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDUGERE

CHANNAPATNA TQ, RAMNAGAR DIST – 571 501

65

108. DR. MURUGESH KS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DADADAHALLI, HD KOTE TQ,MYSORE DIST –571 125

109. DR. UDHAYASHANKAR S KS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-GUDDADARANGEVVANAHALLI,CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501

110. DR. JYOTHI

W/O DR. K BOREGOWDAAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SATHANURMANDYA DIST – 571 401

111. DR. RAVINDRA NAIK KS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHU SAMPIGE, TURUVEKERE TQ,TUMKUR DIST – 572 227

112. DR. MAMATHA B SW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ARASAPURA,

HARAPANAHALLI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 583 131

113. DR. NANDAKUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ANWARI, LINGASUGUR TQ,

66

RAICHUR DIST – 584 122

114. DR. SHASHIKALA R

W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAKKERA, SHORAPUR TQ,YADGIR DIST – 585 224

115. DR. RADHA HW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUTHAGADOORUHOLALKERE TQ,


116. DR. VENKATESH P KALAPURS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-ALANDGULBARGA DIST – 585 101

117. DR. KIRAN CS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HANBAL, SAKLESHPUR TQ,HASSAN DIST – 573 134

118. DR. RAGHAVENDRA W KULKARNIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KODLA, SEDAM TQ,GULBARGA DIST.S

119. DR. SRIKANTH MALLAPPA SAMBRANI


67

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC, ALNAVAR, DHARWAD DIST – 580 001

120. DR. PRIYADARSHINI NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERINDIA POPULATION PROJECT-9 HEALTH CENTREASHOKNAGAR, GULBARGA DIST – 585 101.

121. DR. SUBODH KUMAR RAI GS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ADYANADKA, BANTWAL TQ,

DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST – 574 211

122. DR. RAVINDRA R ANTEENS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC AKKATHANGERAHALAGOKAK TQ, BELGAUM DIST – 591 307

123. DR. NEELESH M NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GUDDADA KOMARANAHALLICHANNAGIRI TQ,DAVANGERE DIST – 577 213

124. DR. SRINIVASA M DEVADURGA

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC NARONA, ALANDA TQ,GULBARGA DIST – 585 302

125. DR. SHANTHAKUMAR K VS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

68

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERGENERAL HOSPITAL, H.D.KOTE,

MYSORE DIST – 571 125

126. DR. LAXMISH NAIKS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 32 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC BANKIKODLA, KUMTA TQUTTARA KANNADA DIST – 581 343

127. DR. KAVITHA KW/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC-HANAGAL, HANAGAL TQ,HAVERI DIST – 581 104

128. DR. SYEEDA AFIYA YASMEEND/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KONKAL, YADGIR TQ,YADGIR DIST – 585 201

129. DR. RASHMI M N

D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC MOODBIDRI,CHICKAMAGALUR DIST – 577 101

130. DR. LOKESHA C MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC AGILE, HASSAN TQ,HASSAN DIST – 573 201

131. DR. PADMAVATHI M

69

W/O, K HARISHAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC AVATHI, DEVANAHALLI TQ,BANGALORE – 562 110

132. DR. SHIVAKUMAR LS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SATTEGAL, KOLLEGALA TQ,CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST – 571 440

133. DR. PUTTAPPA S RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MADALU, ARASIKERE TQ,HASSAN DIST – 573 103

134. DR. HOYISALA H N

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SALAGAME, HASSAN TQ,HASSAN DIST – 573 201

135. DR. JAGADEESH K JINIGIS/O K B JINIGIAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC DESHNUR, BAILHONGAL TQBELGAUM DIST – 591 102

136. DR. MANJUNATHAS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TERAGAON, HALIYAL TQ,

U.K. DIST – 591 329

70

137. DR. NAGARAJS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERTALUK GENERAL HOSPITALBASAVAKALYAN,BIDAR DIST – 585 325

138. DR. MAHESH H S

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC HOSAKERE, MADHUGERE TQ,TUMKUR DIST – 572 132

139. DR. DHANALAKSHMI D PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC BELEGERE, TIPTUR TQ,TUMKUR DIST – 572 201

140. DR. PRAVEEN A SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC GOWDIHALLI, HOLAKERE TQ,


141. DR. MADHUSUDHAN M RS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

CHC SARAGURU, HD KOTE TQ,MYSORE DIST 571 125

142. DR. DAYAMANI BS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC SIDDAPURA KADUGONDAHALLI

71

BANGALORE WEST TQ,BANGALORE URBAN DIST – 560 045

143. DR. SARALA H SS/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KONEHALLIDODDABALLAPURA TQ,

BANGALORE RURAL DIST – 561 203

144. DR. VISHWAJITH NAYAKS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 43 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KUNDANADEVANAHALLI TQBANGALORE RURAL DIST – 562 110.

145. DR. PARAMESHWAR SURESH KENCHANNAVARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUNAVALLISAUNDATTI TQ, BELGAUM DIST – 591 126

146. DR. VIKAS PARAPPA SAVADI

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDAKAVI, RAMADURGA TQ,BELGAUM DIST – 591 123

147. DR. VIJAY KUMAR HS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC YELAKETHANEHALLINELAMANGALA TQ


72

148. DR. MOHAMMED YOUSNUS SALEEMS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KONKAL, YADGIR TQYADGIR DIST – 585 201

149. DR. SHIVAKUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC THONDEBHAVIGOWRIBIDANUR TQ,CHICKBALLAPUR DIST – 562 101

150. DR. SHASHIKUMAR S DS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC D K HALLI, MALAVALLI TQ,MANDYA DIST – 571 430

151. DR. RAJKUMAR RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MANIGANAHALLI

MAGADI TQ, RAMANAGARA DIST – 562 120

152. DR. MALLIKARJUNA G PS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC JADE, SORABA TQSHIMOGA DIST – 577 429

153. DR. SANTHOSH A NS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERCHC SIRIGERE

73


154. DR. K SATHISH BABU

S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC ELLODU, GUDDIBANDE TQ,CHICKBALLAPUR DIST – 561 209

155. DR. MEEAN KUMARI T DS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 37 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDENURA, KUSTAGI TQ,KOPPAL DIST – 584 121

156. DR. GEETHA N SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 33 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC M C HALLI, TARIKERE TQ,

CHICKMAGALUR DIST – 577 101

157. DR. A RAMUS/O, G. ANAJANAIAHAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC SOMAYAJALAHALLISRINIVASAPUR TQ,KOLAR DIST – 563 135

158. DR ANITHA N SW/O, DR. PUTTEGOWDA T

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC-KODDIHALLI KOPPALUHASSAN DIST – 573 201

159. DR. BHARATHI P

W/O DR. MAHESH MAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

74

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAMAGEREKOLLEGAL TQ,

CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST – 571 443

160. DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD T CS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KALLANAKUPPERAMANAGAR DIST – 571 511

161. DR. ANASUYA MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC N G HALLI TQCHITRADURGA DIST – 577 501

162. DR. NAVEEN RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC (EXTENSION UNIT) DODDAPALANAHALLIYELERAMPURAKORATAGERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST – 572 129

163. DR. BHANUMATHI P MS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC MUDALAHIPPEHOLENARASIPURA TQ,

HASSAN DIST – 573 211

164. DR. SUCHETHA K RS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 35 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC KADUSONNAPPANAHALLIBANGALORE EAST TQ – 562 149

75

BANGALORE URBAN DIST.

165. DR. VEENA H N

D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC TOPASANDRARAMANAGARA DIST – 562 112

166. DR.DHANYA KUMARS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 38 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KADANURDODDABALLAPURA TQ,


167. DR. RAGHAVENDRA G SS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 39 YEARSWORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER

PHC MUTTODU, HOSADURGA TQ,CHITRADURGA DIST – 577 527

168. DR. RAVI KANTHIS/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANTAGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERPHC KAMALAPURAGULBARGA TQ/DIST – 585 101

169. KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTICSMINORITY, PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES

ASSOCIATION, FLAT NO.143, 4TH FLOOR,SURYAMUKHI, GARDEN APARTMENTS,# 21, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD,BANGALORE – 560 055,BY ITS CONVENER.

170. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL ENGINEERING ANDDENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA,

76

# 132, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN,17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAMBANGALORE – 560 055,

BY ITS CONVENER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W.SRI. NITIN, ADV. FOR R18 & R19 SRI. UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR

C/R63, R68, R69, R70, R71, R73, R82, R86, R95 SRI. M.N.PRASANNA, ADV. FOR M/S.P S RAJAGOPAL ASSTS. FOR C/R.127 & 159, SRI.DR.N.G.NAGARAJ IS NOT ENTERS INTO THE PRESENT W.A.NO.3020/12)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDETHE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15417/12 &15636-664/12 DATED 8/6/12.

THESE APPEALS BEING RESERVED AND COMING ON

FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These appeals assail the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 08.06.2012, in W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 &

W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012 and W.P.Nos.15813-

15816/2012, which were filed by in-service doctors appointed

on contract basis and were regularised in the year 2007.

77

2. W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 were filed

by the in-service doctors assailing the inclusion of respondent

Nos.5 to 168 therein in the provisional departmental merit

list. Respondent Nos.5 to 66 therein are doctors absorbed as

regular doctors under the provisions of Karnataka Civil

Service (Absorption of Doctors appointed on Contract Basis in

the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare

Services) (Special) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Absorption Rules, 2006’ for the sake of brevity). Similarly,

respondent Nos.67 to 124 in the writ petitions are absorbed

under the aforesaid Rules of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Absorption Rules, 2007’) and respondent Nos.125 to

168 in the said writ petitions are doctors appointed by direct

recruitment in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The learned

Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions, against which

Writ Appeal Nos.3004-3018/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.3020-

3034/2012 have been filed by a batch of thirty petitioners. In

view of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions,

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and W.P.Nos.15811-

15812/2012 and W.P.Nos.15813-15816/2012 were allowed,

wherein the circulars and ranking list issued pursuant to the

78

interim orders granted in W.P.No.15417/2012 and

W.P.Nos.15636-634/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012 were

assailed. The circulars and the ranking list issued pursuant

to the interim orders were quashed by the learned Single

Judge.

3. W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 were filed by the doctors

appointed initially on contract basis and later by direct

recruitment in 2007 and 2009. These writ petitions were also

allowed by the learned Single Judge. W.P.Nos.15365-

15366/2012 also assailed the notification dated 21.02.2012.

They were filed by doctors who were initially appointed on

contract basis and absorbed by the Absorption Rules, 2006

while W.P.No.15365/2012 was dismissed as not pressed.

W.P.No.15366/2012 was dismissed on merits. That apart,

W.A.Nos.2978-2996/2012 are filed by nineteen doctors who

were not parties to the writ petitions, being aggrieved by the

order of the learned Single Judge with regard to

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012, W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012

and W.P.Nos. 15813-15816/2012.

79

4. To complete the details of the writ petitions filed and

disposed of by the learned Single Judge, it is also necessary

to note that W.P.No.14430/2012 was disposed of with a

direction to the respondent authorities to consider the

petitioner’s representation dated 17.04.2012 and pass

appropriate orders thereon within a period of four days. In

para 80 of the order, the learned Single Judge has directed as

follows:

“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 hearing. To

ward off the confusion and uncertainty, 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.”

80

It is in the above circumstances, we have heard these

writ appeals together and the same are disposed of by this

common judgment.

Factual Matrix:

5. The controversy in general in these writ appeals

pertains to the admission to Post-graduate medical and

dental degree and diploma courses, (but specifically with

regard to medical courses) of doctors working in various

Departments of the State Government and other Authorities

as in-service candidates. The respondent-Rajiv Gandhi

University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the

‘respondent-University’) issued a notification dated

21.11.2011 calling upon the eligible candidates to apply for

the Entrance Test for admission to Post-Graduate Medical

and Dental Courses. A brochure viz., “PG Entrance Test-

2012” containing the details of Post-Graduate Entrance Test

for Admission to Medical and Dental Courses for the

academic year 2012-13 was also issued. The respondent-

University is responsible for conducting the Entrance Test

under the provisions of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance

81

Test for Selection and Admission to Post-Graduate Medical

and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the PGET Rules, 2006’ for the

sake of brevity). As per the said brochure, the in-service

candidates were required to submit their applications through

proper channel i.e., the Heads of the Department in which

they are working to the respondent-University. The last date

for receipt of applications was 31.12.2011. The Entrance Test

was conducted on 29.01.2012. The results were announced

on 13.02.2012. The announcement of the merit list was on

20.02.2012. The Commissioner for Health and Family

Welfare Services issued a Circular on 16.05.2012 listing out

the candidates eligible to attend the counseling to be

conducted by the respondent-University on 17.05.2012. The

said Circular was issued pursuant to the interim order dated

15.05.2012 granted in W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012,

W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-15664/2012.

Being aggrieved by the Circular dated 16.05.2012,

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012, W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012

and 15813-15816/2012 were filed assailing the Circular

dated 16.05.2012 and also seeking a direction to permit the

82

said petitioners to be counseled in in-service quota in medical

stream on 17.05.2012.

6. In fact, even prior to the issuance of the Circular dated

16.05.2012, by notification dated 04.05.2012, the

respondent-University had fixed the first round of counseling

for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses

on the basis of the provisional rank list issued on 11.04.2012.

But the final departmental merit list had not yet been

published though the date for counseling had been notified.

Being aggrieved by the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 by notification dated 21.02.2012

as well as notification issued on 18.01.2011 and 07.04.2011

whereby an amendment was made to the PGET Rules, 2006,

W.P.No.15417/2012 and connected matters and

W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 were filed against the inclusion

of respondent Nos.5 to 168 in the writ petitions, in the

provisional merit list, in which interim orders were granted by

this court. By interim order dated 15.05.2012, the said

notifications, giving retrospective effect from 30.12.2011 were

stayed until further orders. Similarly, in W.P.Nos.15365-

83

15366/2012, the notification dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure-B

to the writ petition) giving retrospective effect to the

notification dated 21.02.2012 and consequential proceedings

initiated by the respondent-authorities were stayed by interim

order dated 15.05.2012.

7. The grievance of the in-service doctors who filed the

subsequent batch of writ petitions was with regard to their

exclusion from counseling as a result of the issuance of

Circular dated 16.05.2012 in the wake of interim order in

W.P.Nos.15365-16366/2012, wherein the notification dated

21.02.2012 omitting the condition that the Absorbed doctors

could not be deputed for higher studies for a period of six

years from the date of absorption was assailed. Annexure-Q

is the Circular dated 16.05.2012 in W.P.Nos.15807-

15810/2012 and connected writ petitions.

Relevant Acts and Rules:

8. Having regard to the reliefs sought by various groups of

in-service candidates, reference to the relevant Acts and Rules

which apply needs to be made at this stage itself, so as to

84

have a clear understanding of the elaborate arguments made

by learned counsel on behalf of various categories of in-

service candidates.

9. During the last decade and half, the State of Karnataka

had appointed a number of doctors on contract basis without

resorting to direct recruitment. Though these doctors may

have been appointed through a regular process of selection on

the basis of merit, they were not doctors regularly appointed

in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment of the State

Government. Since they were appointed on contract basis

and had served for a considerable length of time, the State

Government took a decision to absorb them into service in the

Department of Health and Family Welfare. Accordingly, the

Absorption Rules were notified in the years 2006, 2007 and

2009 i.e., on 16.03.2006, 06.07.2007 and 29.01.2010

respectively. Rules 3 and 5 of Absorption Rules, 2006 read as

under:

“3. Absorption of Contract Doctors in the

Directorate of Health and Family Welfare

Services into the State Civil Services:- (1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the

85

Karnataka State Civil Services (General

Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or the Karnataka

Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services

(Recruitment) Rules, 1965 or any other rules made

for deemed to have been made under the provisions

of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978

(Karnataka Act 14 of 1990) every Contract Doctor

mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule and

continued as such on the date of commencement of

these rules, shall with effect from such date of

commencement be absorbed in the corresponding

category of post and pay scale specified in columns

(5) and (6) thereof, respectively, in the Directorate of

Health and Family Welfare Services.

Provided that no such person shall be

absorbed:

i) if he was disqualified for appointment under

the Karnataka Civil Services (General

Recruitment)Rules, 1977 on the date of his

appointment as Doctor on contract basis;

ii) if he does not possess the minimum academic

qualification, specified in the rules of recruitment

applicable for recruitment to the said post;

iii) in any post reserved for the persons

belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes or other Backward Classes to which he was

appointed as contract Doctor, if he is found to be

86

not belonging to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, as

the case may be otherwise such posts shall be

filled by process of special recruitment from among

these classes.

(2) The Contract Doctor who are absorbed under

these rules, shall after absorption, work atleast for

the period of six years from the date of

commencement of these rules, at first in rural areas

and shall not be deputed for higher studies during

that period.

* * *5. Application of other rules: 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 insofar as they are not

inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, shall

apply to persons absorbed under these rules.”

The Absorption Rules 2007 are similar to Absorption

Rules, 2006 except with regard to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 which

reads as follows:

“(2) The Contract Doctors who are absorbed under

these rules, shall after absorption, work atleast for

the period of ten years from the date of

commencement of these rules, at first in rural

87

areas. They will not be eligible to be deputed for

higher studies for a period of six years from the

date of absorption.”

In the same vein, sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Absorption

Rules, 2009 reads as follows:

“(2) The Contract Doctors who are absorbed under

these rules, shall from the date of absorption, work

atleast for the period of six years in rural areas and

shall not be eligible for deputation for higher

studies during that period.”

10. When the matters stood thus, the State Government by

notifications dated 30.12.2011 published the Draft

Amendment Rules to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and

2009. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules were sought to

be amended. Further, the amendments were to take effect

from 30.12.2011. Objections were invited to the said Draft

Rules. Thereafter, on 21.02.2011, the Amendment Rules

were notified. As per the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules, 2006, in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the following words

were omitted viz., “and shall not be deputed for higher studies

during that period.” In Absorption Rules, 2007, in sub-rule

(2) of Rule 3, the following words were omitted viz., “they will

88

not be eligible to be deputed for higher studies for a period of

six years from the date of absorption.” Similarly, in Absorption

Rules, 2009, the amendment was omission of the following

words viz., “and shall not be deputed for higher studies during

that period.”

11. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the Absorption Rules provided

that the contract doctors on being absorbed, had to work

atleast for a period of six years in rural areas and were

ineligible for deputation for higher studies during that period.

In fact, under the Absorption Rules of 2006 and 2007, six

years of rural service was to be the first six years after

absorption. In the 2009 Rules, however, the absorbed

doctors had to work atleast for six years in rural areas. But

in all the three sets of Absorption Rules, the absorbed doctors

who were working in rural areas were not to be deputed for

higher studies during that period. By virtue of amendments

made to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009 by way

of omission in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the embargo on the

absorbed doctors to be deputed for higher studies for an

initial period of six years from the date of absorption, during

89

which period the absorbed doctors were to serve in rural

areas was lifted. Therefore, the controversy is as to whether

the absorbed doctors under the Absorption Rules have now

become eligible for deputation for higher studies.

12. At this stage itself, it is relevant to refer to the Rules

Regulating Deputation of or Grant of Study Leave to

Government Servants for Prosecution of Special Course of

Study consisting of Higher Studies or Specialised Training

within India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Deputation Rules’ for

the sake of convenience) on which reliance has been placed

by the appellants. These Rules are contained in Appendix-II-

A to Rule 61 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as ‘KCSR’ for the sake of brevity) have

been deemed to be enacted as part of the Karnataka State

Civil Services Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the

Act’ for the sake of brevity) by virtue of Section 3(3)(iii) of the

said Act. The said Act is in force with effect from 30.05.1990.

Rule 61 reads as follows:

“61. (1)(a) The State Government may, with due

regard to the exigencies of public service, depute or

grant study leave to a Government servant for

90

prosecution of a special course of study consisting

of higher studies or specialised training in

professional or technical subjects having a direct

and close connection with the sphere of his duty.

(b) The State government may also grant study

leave to a Government servant for prosecution of

studies which may not be closely or directly

connected with his work but which are capable of

widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his

abilities as a civil servant and to equip him better to

collaborate with those employed in the other

branches of public service.

(2) A Government servant who is deputed or

granted study leave for higher studies or

specialised training shall not be entitled to claim

any monetary benefit or seniority by virtue of the

higher qualification or training acquired.

(3) The deputation or grant of study leave to a

Government servant for prosecution of higher

studies or specialised training shall be regulated in

accordance with the rules contained in Appendix II-

A.”

91

Rules 1, 4 and 5 of Appendix-II-A the Deputation Rules,

which are relevant for the purpose of the present case read as

follows:

“APPENDIX II-A

Rules regulating deputation of or grant ofstudy leave to Government servants forprosecution of special course of studyconsisting of higher studies or specialisedtraining within India

1. The Government may depute a Government

servant, who has rendered not less than five years

as regular service and is below [48] years of age,

for a special course of study, consisting of higher

studies of specialised training in a professional or

technical subject having a direct and close

connection with the sphere of his duty at a

recognised institution within the State or outside

the State but within India. The restriction in regard

to length of service and age will not apply to

deputation of Government servants for foundation

refresher courses of training or any in-service

training of short-term duration not exceeding three

months.

x x x

4. the number of Government servants to be

deputed at any point of time for higher studies or

92

specialised training shall be kept at the minimum,

not exceeding 5% of the sanctioned permanent

strength of the concerned cadre.

5. The selection of a candidate for higher studies or

specialised training shall be made strictly on the

basis of seniority except for reasons to be recorded

in writing.”

13. The State Government by order dated 29.01.2010 has

ordered that the contractual service rendered in the past

under the contractual appointment by those doctors working

as General Duty Medical Officers in the Health and Family

Welfare Department should be taken into consideration only

for in-service deputation to Post-graduate studies. The

operative portion of the order reads as follows:

“GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HFW 342 HSH 2008,BASNGALORE, DATED: 29.1.2010

In the background of the circumstancesdetailed in the preamble, it is hereby ordered thatthe contractual service rendered in the past undercontractual appointment by those presently

working as General Duty Medical Officers/DentalHealth Officers in the Health and Family WelfareDepartment be taken into consideration only for in-service deputation to post graduate studies.Further, it is hereby ordered that subject to

93

condition that it would be certified that there wasno break in service between these two services, theservice rendered by some Medical Officers who

were appointed under rural weightage quota andwho were subsequently continued undercontractual basis under rural weightage and undercontract basis be taken into consideration whiledeputing for post graduate studies under in-servicequota. It is ordered that there is no provision to

consider these contractual service and servicerendered under the rural weightage quota for anyother service matters.

By orders and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka

Sd/- (I. HEMNATH) Under Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department (Service-I)”

14. The other set of Act and Rules, which call for our

consideration is, the Karnataka Educational Institutions

(Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act’ for the sake of

brevity) which regulates admission to educational institutions

imparting education in Medicine and Dental Sciences and to

curb and prohibit the collection of capitation fee for

admission to such educational institutions. The said Act was

published on 09.08.1984 in the Karnataka Gazette

Extraordinary. Section 4 regulates admission to educational

94

institutions. Section 12 states that the provisions of the Act

have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any

other law for the time being in force. Section 14 empowers

the State Government to make Rules for carrying out all or

any of the purposes of the Act. The Karnataka Conduct of

Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post-Graduate

Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as PGET Rules, 2006) have been

enacted under Section 14 of the Prohibition of Captitation Fee

Act. Section 2 is the definition clause. The relevant clauses

read as follows:

“2. Definitions:- In these rules, unless the context

otherwise requires-

(c) “Entrance Test” means the Entrance Test

referred to in Rule 3 for selection of candidates for

admission to Government Seats in Post-Graduate

Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma courses;

x x x

(g) “In-service candidates” means persons

belonging to the Health and Family Welfare

Services, the Karnataka Medical Education Services

of the State Civil Services, Employees State

Insurance (Medical) Services, Mahanagara Palike

95

Services, Boards and Corporations Services and

Institutions which are granted autonomous status

including the persons deputed from such services to

any other foreign services;

(h) “Merit” means the order of merit determined on

the basis of marks secured in the Entrance Test;”

Rule 3 deals with Entrance Test, Rule 4 speaks of

eligibility, while Rule 10 deals with the procedure for selection

of in-service candidates for admission to Post-graduate

Medical and Dental courses. The same read as follows:

“3. Entrance Test:- (1) For the purpose of selection

of candidates and determination of merit, an

Entrance Test shall be conducted by the Entrance

Test Committee for the candidates seeking

admission to the Post-Graduate degree and

Diploma courses in Medical Sciences and Post-

Graduate degree in Dental Sciences including the

seats reserved for in-service candidates.

(2) In-service candidate, who has completed three

years of regular service and successfully completed

the probationary period as on the last date of

receipt of applications for the Entrance Test, shall

96

apply through, the proper channel only through

concerned Head of the Department i.e., Director of

Medical Education/Director of Health and Family

Welfare Services/Director, ESI/Heads of

Autonomous Institutions/Heads of Boards and

Corporations, as the case may be.

4. Eligibility:- (1) A candidate who fulfill the

following criteria shall be eligible to appear for the

Entrance Test, namely:-

(a) He is a citizen of India

(b) He has studied and passed in the courses

leading to the award of MBBS/BDS Degrees in

colleges recognised by Medical Council of

India/Dental Council of India Government of India

established by law and located in Karnataka State;

or

(c) Candidate must be of Karnataka origin who has

studied MBBS/BDS degrees in colleges outside

Karnataka recognised by Medical Council of

India/Dental Council of India and Government of

India and affiliated to any University established

by law in India.

x x x

10. Procedure for Selection of In-service

Candidates for Admission to Post-graduate

97

Medical and Dental Courses:- The procedure for

selection of in-service candidates for admission to

Post-graduate Degree and Diploma in Medical and

Dental courses is as follows:-

(1) No in-service candidates shall be eligible for

admission under these rules;

(a) unless he has put in not less than three

years of regular service;

(b) unless he has satisfactorily completed the

prescribed period of probation.

(2) No in-service candidate shall be eligible for

admission to Post-graduate degree and Diploma

courses in any subject other than the Speciality in

which he is working.

(3) An in-service candidate who is already holding

a Post-graduate degree in any speciality shall not

be eligible for admission in any other Post-graduate

degree or Diploma.

(4) An in-service candidate who is already holding

a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality, through

Government deputation, shall be eligible for

admission to Post-graduate degree courses in the

same speciality and shall not be eligible for any

other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses;

(5) An in-service candidate who is studying in any

Post-graduate degree or Diploma course shall not

be eligible for admission under these rules;

98

(6) No candidate who is above forty-eight years of

age as on the last date fixed for receipt of

application shall be eligible for admission.”

Rules 11 and 12 pertain to distribution of seats

and reservation of seats for in-service candidates. The

same read as follows:

“11. Distribution of seats:- (1) Out of total

number of Government seats, the Government shall

notify the number of seats to be reserved for in-

service candidates.

(2) Any seats reserved for in-service candidates

which remain unfilled for want of eligible

candidates or otherwise shall be added to the non-

in-service quota seats.

12. Reservation of seats for in-service

candidates:- Out of the total number of seats

available for in-service candidates:-

(a) fifteen per cent of seats shall be reserved for

persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes;

(b) three per cent shall be reserved for persons

belonging to the Scheduled Tribes.”

99

15. By a corrigendum issued on 10.01.2007, sub-rule (2) of

Rule 3 has been amended. The corrigendum reads as

follows:

“GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKANo.HFW 399 MPS 2005 Karnataka Government Secretariat, Bangalore, dated 10-01-2007

CORIGENDUMIn the Government Notification No.HFW 399 MPS 2005,

dated 08-12-2006 under Rule 3(2) the word “regular”,

appearing in the 1st line shall and shall always be deemed to

have been deleted and after the word ‘service’ appearing in

the same line, the following words shall be inserted and read

further.

“in the concerned department including candidates

appointed under the Rural Weightage Category.”

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/-

(MAAZ AHMED SHARIFF) Joint Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department,

(Medical Education)”

15. Rule 5A was inserted by notification dated 18.01.2011.

The said Rule reads as follows:

100

“3. Amendment of Rule 5:- After rule 5 the said

rules, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

“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 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

101

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.

(2) The in-service candidates working under the

Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services

shall not be eligible for Postgraduation or Diploma

courses in the disciplines which are not required in

the hospitals or institutions coming under the

purview of the Director of Health and Family

Welfare Services.”

The said Rule was withdrawn by notification dated

07.03.2011. However, the said Rule was revived with effect

from 07.04.2011.

Relevant Precedents:

16. At this stage itself, it would be relevant to refer to some

of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court having

a bearing on the controversy in issue so that when the

contentions of the respective parties are epitomized, the

reference to the said precedents could be easily

comprehended.

102

17. In K.Duraiswamy V/s. State of T.N. (2001)2 SCC 538)

the Apex Court has held that “classification could be made as

“service quota” and “open quota”, for in-service candidates

and other candidates respectively, confining the respective

class/cadre candidates to the respective percentages

earmarked for the two of them exclusively.

The Court further held as follows:

(i) The Government possesses the right and

authority to decide from what sources the

admissions in educational institutions or to

particular disciplines and courses therein have to

be made and that too in what proportion;

x x x

(ii) that such exclusive allocation and stipulation of

a definite quota or number of seats between in-

service and non-service or private candidates

provided two separate channels of entry and a

candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot

claim to steal a march into another exclusive quota

by advancing a claim based on merit. Inter se merit

of the candidates in each quote shall be determined

103

based on the merit performance of the candidates

belonging to that quota;”

18. In the case of State of M.P. -V/s- Gopal D.Tirthani

(2003)7 SCC 83) (Gopal Thirthani) the Apex Court ruled on

the significance of the eligibility test and held as follows:

“25. The eligibility test, called the entrance test or

the Pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes.

Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the

knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate

whether he would be able to prosecute post-

graduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing

so; secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the

merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital

significance at the counselling when it comes to

allotting the successful candidates to different

disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some

disciplines are considered to be more creamy and

are more coveted than the others.

26. The Medical Council of India, for the present,

insists, through its Regulations, on a common

Entrance Test being conducted whereat the

minimum qualifying marks would be 50%.”

104

19. As to whether weightage could be given to doctors for

their having rendered specified number of years of service in

rural or tribal areas, it has been observed that in-service

doctors had been told in advance and knowing that by

rendering service in rural/tribal areas, they can capture

better prospects of earning higher professional qualifications

and consequently eligibility for promotion, acts as a

motivating factor and provides incentive to young in-service

doctors to opt for service in rural/tribal areas. Therefore,

assigning weightage to rural service rendered as Assistant

Surgeons and carving out a classification in favour of women

candidates conferring them with eligibility for seeking

admission in post-graduate courses by rendering three years’

consecutive service in rural areas satisfy the twin tests of

Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Apex Court held that

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 interse merit within the class of

in-service candidates who have qualified in the pre-PG test by

securing the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the

Medical Council of India.

105

20. With regard to the academic year 2008-09, certain in-

service candidates in the State (Dr. Ranganath and others)

questioned the action of the State in not allowing them to

appear for counseling as per a single merit list, in terms of

Rule 2(h) of the PGET Rules 2006 in W.P.Nos.9397-

9399/2009. By an order dated 08.04.2009 issued by the

State Government, three separate merit lists were prepared

based on the length of service of the in-service candidates i.e.,

preference to be given to the first slab (i.e., those who had

completed five years of regular service), then to the second

slab (i.e., those who had completed four years of service) and

then to the third slab (i.e., those who had completed three

years of service). The said order was issued by the State

Government on 08.04.2009 purportedly under Rule 61(1)(a)

read with Appendix-II-A of the KCSR. A learned Single Judge

of this court by order dated 27.07.2009 sought to

harmoniously interpret Rule 61 read with Appendix II-A of the

KCSR and PGET Rules, 2006 and held as follows:

“8. As aforementioned, in these matters, Rules of

106

2006 and Rule 61 r/w. Appendix II-A of the KCSRs

operate simultaneously in such matters. Therefore,

they will have to be harmoniously construed. One

cannot be ignored in preference to the other. The

object of the State appears to give preference to the

seniors in service who have passed the Common

Entrance Test examination along with the juniors.

By this process, juniors will also not get effected,

inasmuch as, they may get seat under in-service

quota in the coming years. Such a procedure will

not violate the principles of law laid down by the

Apex Court in the case of State of Machya Pradesh -

Vs- Gopal D.Thirthani (cited supra), inasmuch as,

the seniors in-service also will have to get through

the entrance examination for getting the Post-

graduate seat.

9. In view of the above, this court does not find any

error in the Government Order dated 8.4.2009

giving preference to the candidates who have

completed 5 years of service in the department. As

aforementioned, Rules of 2006 will have to be read

harmoniously with Rule 61(1) r/w. Appendix II-A of

the KCSRs. Accordingly, the State Government is

justified in issuing the Government Order dated

8.4.2009.

107

10. In the matter on hand, however, the petitioners

are selected and are already admitted to the Post-

graduation courses as in-service candidates by

virtue of the interim order granted by this Court.

They are continuing their course of study. It is also

brought to the notice of the court by learned counsel

for the petitioners that the petitioners herein have

also completed 5 years of service in the department

by now. Respondents 6 to 17 are also admitted to

Post-graduation course as in-service candidates. In

view of the above, this court does not propose to

disturb the academic career of the petitioners as

well as respondents 6 to 17, more so, when the

period prescribed for counseling is already over.

Accordingly, the following order is made:

The prayers as sought for in the writ petitions

cannot be granted.

The Government Order dated 8.4.2009 bearing

No.Aakuka 86 HSH 2009, is declared valid.

However, the petitioners who are already selected

and admitted to the Post-graduation course shall

not be disturbed in view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case.

108

Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with the

said observations.”

21. As far as the academic year 2011-2012 is concerned,

W.P.No.15539/2011 was filed assailing the provisional merit

list, whereby, according to the petitioners therein, 34

candidates who were working on contract basis and whose

services were absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 and

Absorption Rules 2007 and who had not completed six years

of regular service and were, therefore, ineligible to apply for

PGET-2011 under in-service quota had found a place in the

provisional merit list. By an interim order dated 01.05.2011,

a learned Single Judge held that the 34 candidates who had

been absorbed under the aforesaid two Rules had not

completed six years from the date of their Absorption and

prima facie, were ineligible to apply for PGET-2011 under in-

service quota. Rejecting the contention of the private

respondents therein, the learned Single Judge further

observed as follows:

“It is clear that the aforesaid 34 candidates, who

are absorbed under the aforesaid two Rules had

109

not completed six years from the date of their

absorption. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view

that they were ineligible to apply for PGET-2011

under in-service quota. There is no merit in the

contention of the private respondents that there is

no bar for them to appear for the examination and

the only bar is for deputing them for higher studies.

The very object of appearing in the PGET

examination, 2011 and counseling them is to

depute them for higher studies. There is no point in

selecting them and not deputing them for higher

studies. Therefore, inclusion of respondent Nos.5 to

36 in the final list of in-service candidates for PG

Degree/Diploma selection for the year 2011

published by the respondents vide Annexure J is

contrary to law. Their names should not have been

cleared by the third respondent for their

appearance in the PGET-2011 examination until

they complete six years of service from the date of

absorption.”

22. Accordingly, a direction was given to the respondent-

authorities to re-do the final merit list of in-service candidates

by omitting the 34 ineligible candidates. The said order was

assailed in W.A.Nos.4457-4461/2011 and connected matters.

By order dated 07.06.2011, the writ appeals were dismissed.

110

Special Leave Petitions were filed against the order of the

Division Bench. Initially the Apex Court by order dated

22.06.2011 issued an order of status quo, but by order dated

01.08.2011, the same was vacated and a direction was also

given to give effect to the order of the High Court subject to

final decision in the Special Leave Petition which we are told

is pending.

23. What is significant as far as the academic year 2012-13

is concerned is the controversy with regard to the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, whereby

there is a omission of the embargo with regard to prosecuting

Post-graduate studies for a period of six years after the date

of absorption. Therefore, one of the considerations that

would have to be made is as to the binding effect of the orders

dated 07.06.2011 of the Division Bench of this Court

affirming the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated

01.05.2011.

24. One other aspect that has to be stated at this stage

itself is that the appellants in W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012,

111

except appellant Nos. 12 and 14, were appointed by way of

direct recruitment in the years 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Appellant Nos.12 and 14 were appointed under the

Absorption Rules, 2003. They have placed reliance on

notification dated 18.12.2007, 08.02.2008 and 09.01.2009

whereby certain doctors were appointed by direct recruitment

with a condition that every candidate so appointed had to

compulsorily serve atleast for six years in rural areas.

25. That apart, by government Order dated 29.012010, it

was ordered that the contractual service rendered in the past

under contractual appointment by those doctors working

under the Department of Health and Family Welfare be taken

into consideration only for in-service candidates to Post-

graduate studies. The contractual service was not to be

considered for any other service condition. The said

Government Order was questioned by certain doctors in

W.P.Nos.8544-8550/2010 and connected matters, which

were dismissed by order dated 26.04.2010.

112

26. Against the aforesaid order, W.A.Nos.1922-1923/2010

and connected matters were filed. A Division Bench of this

court, by order dated 31.05.2010 allowed the appeals in part.

Against the said order, Special Leave Petitions were filed

before the Apex Court which initially passed an order

21.06.2010, stating that the admission list shall not be

finalised until the next date of hearing. Thereafter, by order

dated 28.06.2010, the operation of the order of the Division

Bench was stayed until further orders. The Special Leave

Petitions are pending adjudication before the Apex Court.

27. The recent order of the Apex Court in the case of Priya

Gupta -V/s- State of Chattisgarh, dated 08.05.2012

(C.A.No.4318/2012) has also been brought to our notice with

regard to compliance of admissions in terms of the prescribed

time schedule. In the said decision, the Apex Court has

observed that the High Court should ensure strict adherence

to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to

the rule on merit. Further, that the High Court may, except

in exceptional cases, should consider it appropriate to decline

interim orders and hear the main petitions finally subject to

113

the convenience of the court.

Contentions and submissions:

28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

29. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in

Writ Appeal Nos.2978-86/2012 & 2987-96/2012 contended

that these appellants were not parties to the writ petitions.

However, they are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single

Judge in holding that the PGET Rules 2006 prevail over the

Deputation Rules made under the KCSR, thereby permitting

those in-service doctors who are regularised in the year 2007

as well as 2009 to be considered for admission to Post-

graduate Courses. That these appellants were absorbed

under the Absorption Rules of 2006. In view of the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007

and 2009, the in-service doctors are governed by the KCSR

pertaining to deputation. Therefore, the in-service doctors

who were absorbed in the year 2007 and 2009 were not

eligible to take the Entrance Test under the PGET Rules 2006

as they have not completed five years of regular service.

114

Similarly, the directly recruited in-service doctors who have

not completed five years of regular service were not entitled to

take the Entrance Test. That Rule 61 read with Appendix-IIA

of the KCSR pertain to regulating deputation of or grant of

study leave to Government Servants for prosecution of special

course of study consisting of special study or specialised

training within India. The said Rules have the force of the

Act, having regard to Section 3(1)(b) read with Section 3 (3)(iii)

of the Act, that the said Act prevails over all other laws as it

has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in

any other law with respect of matters for which provision is

made in the Act or for which Rules have been made under the

Act. Therefore, when once the amendments were made by

virtue of notification dated 21.02.2012, omitting the embargo

placed on the contract doctors who were regularised under

the Absorption Rules from being considered for Post-graduate

courses, the Deputation Rules in terms of the KCSR have

come into operation.

30. It was emphasised that though the contract doctors

were absorbed into service, they were regularised by way of

115

Absorption Rules with an embargo that they shall not be

eligible for higher studies within a period of six years from the

date of regularisation. Once the said embargo is omitted in

the Absorption Rules, by virtue of the amendment notified on

21.02.2012, though with retrospective effect from 30.12.2011,

Rule 61 of the KCSR at once became applicable to the

contract doctors who are absorbed into regular service. Rule

1 to Appendix-IIA to Rule 61 of the KCSR (Deputation Rules)

categorically states that a person who has not rendered less

than five years regular service or who is not below 48 years of

age would not be eligible for deputation for higher studies.

31. Therefore, having regard to Rule 61 of KCSR and

keeping in mind left over seats in in-service quota, the State

Government had devised an order of priority on the basis of

three merit lists based on the number of years of regular

service completed by in-service doctors. The said order of

priority was upheld by this Court in the case of

Dr.N.Ranganath and others. According to these appellants,

the KCSR are applicable to all in-service doctors and the

PGET Rules 2006 are only procedural in nature and do not

116

operate in the field of deputation, which is a condition of

service. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the PGET

Rules 2006 only speak of eligibility for taking the exam.

Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006 cannot over-ride the

provisions of the Deputation Rules. That infact, as a result of

the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, there has been

uniformity brought about between the directly recruited and

absorbed doctors. Moreover, the PGET Rules 2006 are made

under the Capitation Fee Act, which has nothing to do with

the deputation or service conditions of the in-service doctors.

Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006 cannot have an over-riding

effect over the Deputation Rules. Reference was also made to

an interim order of the learned Single Judge dated

01.05.2011 in W.P.No.15539/2011 wherein it has been

categorically held that these in-service doctors who have not

completed six years of service from the date of absorption,

would not be entitled to appear for PGET examination. That

the said order dated 01.05.2011, has been upheld by a

Division Bench of this Court and in the Special Leave Petition

preferred against the said order, the Supreme Court has

vacated the earlier order of status-quo granted on

117

22.06.2011. Consequently, the order of this court has to be

given effect to subject to the final decision in SLP. It was,

therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge in these

cases was not right in holding that the PGET Rules 2006

prevail over the rules pertaining to deputation with regard to

Post-graduate studies.

32. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in

W.A.Nos.3020/2012 contended that except appellant Nos.4,

9, 13 and 14, the other appellants are doctors who were

appointed by direct recruitment. During the period 1997 to

2003, the aforesaid four appellants were initially appointed on

contract basis, but they were subsequently absorbed, but

there was no condition or an embargo on deputation in their

Absorption Rules. That pursuant to the decision of the

Supreme Court in Gopal Thirthani’s case, PGET Rules 2003

were framed and later PGET Rules 2006 have been re-framed.

That as far as the present admissions are concerned, the last

date for receipt of applications was 31.12.2011. The common

Entrance Test was held on 29.02.2012. That these appellants

are aggrieved by the retrospective operation given to the

118

amendments made to the Absorption Rules dated 21.02.2012,

with effect from 31.12.2011. The appellants are also

aggrieved by the grant of eight marks as weightage to those

doctors who have served in the rural areas in terms of Rule

5A of the PGET Rules 2006. That by interim order dated

15.05.2012 granted by this Court, the amendments made to

the Absorption Rules were stayed. As a consequence, the

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 were

included in the merit list. But the doctors absorbed in the

subsequent rules were excluded. As a result, the doctors

absorbed in the year 2007 and 2009 have challenged the

merit list. But since the appellants’ challenge to the amended

Absorption Rules has remained ineffective on account of

learned Single Judge holding that the Absorption Rules

cannot be challenged in a writ petition filed before the High

Court, but could only be challenged before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction to deal

with service matters of Government Servants, the eligibility of

the batch of absorbed doctors in the year 2007 and 2009 to

take up the Entrance Test has been recognised by the learned

Single Judge, contrary to the provisions of Rule 61 read with

119

Appendix-IIA of the KCSR. As far as the Writ Petitions filed

by direct recruits are concerned, their exclusion from the

merit list has been held to be bad in law, since they had also

challenged the condition in the appointment order that they

should work for a period of five years in rural areas.

33. On the basis of the above factual matrix, learned Senior

Counsel contended that the retrospective effect given to the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules is arbitrary,

contrary to the spirit of the rules of absorption and

unreasonable and hence, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India. That the amendment made to the

Absorption Rules takes away the vested rights which have

accrued in favour of the direct recruits and therefore, the said

amendments should be struck down or in the alternative at

least be read down by holding that they do not take away the

right of the direct recruits who are bound by the Deputation

Rules (Rule 61 read with Annexure-IIA of the KCSR) for this

academic year and that they are prospective in nature. That

the amendment to the Absorption Rules made after the

commencement of the proceedings of selection for admission

120

to the Post-graduate courses has been made in order to

favour the absorbed doctors and so as to make them eligible

when initially under the rules of absorption they were

ineligible. That in terms of the Absorption Rules, the

absorbed doctors became regular employees from the date of

absorption and an additional condition of absorption was

imposed on the absorbed doctors inasmuch as they were

barred from proceeding for higher studies during their initial

period of service in the rural areas. Also under the terms of

the Absorption Rules, the previous service of the contract

doctors cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. That

the absorbed doctors accepted these conditions and were

absorbed into regular service on the basis of the Absorption

Rules. That as on the last date fixed for receipt of

applications for taking the Entrance Test for Post-graduation

courses, the absorbed doctors were ineligible to apply for the

Entrance Test as the notification for making the amendment

to the Absorption Rules had been published only on

21.02.2012. That the object of the retrospective amendment

made to the Absorption Rules has been, to favour the

absorbed doctors to the detriment of the directly recruited

121

doctors. It was contended that pursuant to the amendment

made to Absorption Rules all in-service doctors belong to one

class, irrespective of whether they are direct recruits or

contract doctors absorbed into service and thereby

regularised. In respect of both category of doctors, now it is

only the Deputation Rules made under the KCSR which are

applicable and not the PGET Rules 2006 in the matter of

deputation of the doctors for Post-graduate courses is

concerned. Therefore, a vested right, which had accrued to

the directly recruited doctors owing to their seniority in

service has been taken away by the amendments made to the

Absorption Rules particularly, after the last date for

submitting the application has lapsed. Therefore, it was

preferred that the retrospective amendment to the Absorption

Rules is illegal or at any rate they have to be read down to

have only a prospective operation and cannot be applied to

the present admissions.

34. Learned Senior Counsel who has appeared for the

appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.3004-3018/2012 contended

that the grant of eight marks by way of weightage to

122

candidates who have served beyond five years in the rural

areas on completion of each year of service is unreasonable.

No doubt, in Gopal Thirthani, the Apex Court has held that

weightage for rural service is permissible, but it should be

reasonable. That proviso to Rule 5A is contrary to the dictum

in Gopal Thirthani. That as far as State of Karnataka is

concerned, service in rural areas for doctors is not

compulsory, but is a matter of chance. Therefore, the proviso

to Rule 5A of the PGET Rules 2006 are unreasonable and

legally invalid.

35. It was also brought to our notice that pursuant to the

dictum in Gopal Thirthani and in terms of Regulation 9 of the

Post-graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the PGME Regulations’), the PGET

Rules 2006 were enacted including in-service candidates in

the State of Karnataka. The said Rules are only procedural in

nature and cannot have an over-riding effect on the

Deputation Rules made under the KCSR. That ultimately,

there has to be a harmonious interpretation of the KCSR and

PGET Rules 2006 and if that is not possible, then the

123

Deputation Rules would apply. Also the doctors who qualify

for the Post-graduate course are called specialists, whereas it

is only general duty doctors who are posted in rural areas. As

a result of the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, the

absorbed doctors who qualify as Post-graduate doctors would

not complete their rural service, whereas doctors appointed

by direct recruitment have to put in atleast five years of rural

service which is an aspect of discrimination against the

directly recruited doctors. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore,

summarised his contentions by saying that as a result of the

weightage given to doctors who have served in the rural areas,

merit has been redefined, which is contrary to the merit

secured by the candidates in the Entrance Test. Further, as

a result of the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, the

insistence on rural service for the absorbed doctors has been

negated.

36. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

General contended that there are two classes of in-service

doctors i.e., i) doctors appointed by direct recruitment and ii)

doctors appointed on contract basis and thereafter absorbed

124

under the respective Absorption Rules. That the Absorption

Rules are special rules regularising the services of contract

doctors. That Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules made a

condition of compulsory rural service for an initial period of

six years pursuant to absorption, during which period the

absorbed doctors were not permitted to seek deputation for

higher studies. However, such an embargo was not placed on

the directly recruited doctors. In order to remove the

discrimination between the two categories of in-service

candidates that amendments were brought about to the

Absorption Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 with retrospective

effect from 30.12.2011. The Draft Rules were published on

30.12.2011 and after inviting objections, the amended rules

were notified. As a result, the embargo placed on the

absorbed doctors was removed and discrimination has been

eliminated.

37. It was further contended that insofar as Post-graduate

courses in medical and dental sciences are concerned, it is

the PGET Rules, 2006 that would apply in the matter of

admission to such courses. That the Deputation Rules (Rule

125

61 read with Appendix-IIA of the KCSR) which are general

rules applicable to all Government Servants, but as far as

Post-Graduate medical and dental courses are concerned, it

is only the PGET Rules, 2006 which are applicable. These

Rules are framed pursuant to the direction of the Medical

council of India as well as keeping in mind the Supreme

Court dicta in various judgments for determining merit.

Therefore, the general rules for deputation framed under the

KCSR would have to be yield to the special rules in the matter

of admission to Post-graduate medical and dental courses.

That Rule 2(g) of the PGET Rules, 2006 defines in-service

candidates and in terms of the said definition doctors in

Government service who are appointed by direct recruitment

or regularised under the Absorption Rules are treated at par

as there can be no discrimination between the doctors

appointed from the said two sources once the contract

doctors are regularised by the State Government. Therefore,

it was contended that where admission to Post-graduate

medical or dental courses are concerned under the PGET

Rules, 2006 the KCSR are not applicable. On the other hand,

the PGET Rules 2006 are equally applicable to both directly

126

recruited doctors as well as absorbed doctors. The

amendments made to the 2006, 2007 and 2009 Rules is with

the object to bring it in consonance with the PGET Rules

2006. It is under those circumstances, the amendments have

been made to Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules giving it a

retrospective effect so that the Rules could be applicable for

the admission made in the current academic year. There is

no malafides alleged against the State Government as no

particular group of doctors have been favoured. On the other

hand, to remove discrimination within the in-service

candidates, the amendments were made to the rules of

absorption. The directly recruited doctors have no vested

right to seek admission to the Post-graduate courses, except

by way of merit obtained in the Entrance Test. The directly

recruited doctors cannot, therefore, challenge the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules. The object and purpose of the

amendment is to bring about a level playing field between the

doctors, so that merit is the foremost consideration for

admission to Post-graduate courses subject to fulfilling other

conditions in the PGET Rules of 2006.

127

38. It was also contended that there is no substance in the

challenge made to the Amendment Rules as the said

amendments do not violate the Fundamental Rights of the

petitioner nor its parent Act. Learned Addl. Advocate General,

therefore, contended that merit being the most important

criterion for admission to Post-graduate medical and dental

courses, PGET Rules 2006 would be applicable and they have

an over-riding effect on any other Rules concerning

deputation. He also justified the amendment made to Rule

5A of the PGET Rules 2006 with effect from 18.01.2011,

which is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Gopal Thirthani and that the challenge made to the

said Rules is without any merit, as the directly recruited

doctors are eligible for such a weightage as also the absorbed

doctors.

39. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents

in W.A.Nos.2978-2986/2012 and connected matters at the

outset stated that the challenge made to the amendment of

the Absorption Rules is without substance. That these

respondents have the merit and are eligible to be admitted for

128

the Post-graduate courses. On the other hand, those who are

less meritorious have challenged the Amendment Rules. That

in the petitions filed by certain other doctors, there was an

interim order of stay granted to the Amendment Rules on

15.05.2012. As a consequence, the State Government

prepared a fresh merit list excluding these respondents by

issuance of Circular dated 16.05.2012. Therefore, the latter

were constrained to file writ petitions seeking their inclusion

in the merit list having regard to their eligibility under the

PGET Rules 2006. It was also explained that the State

Government had not appointed any doctor since the year

1999 by way of direct recruitment. On the other hand,

doctors were appointed on contract basis and since these

doctors had served for considerably long time and they had

sought for regularisation of their services, the Absorption

Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009 were framed. However,

Absorption Rules had an additional condition inasmuch as in

their initial period of service after absorption, the doctors had

to work in rural areas for a period of six years and during the

said period they were not eligible for deputation for higher

studies. The State Government felt that such a condition

129

would be to the disadvantage of the absorbed doctors having

regard to the fact that they have served for long number of

years and therefore, the said embargo was omitted pursuant

to the amendments made to the said rules of absorption.

That the amendment to the Absorption Rules are made

pursuant to Rule 8 of the Act which enables a rule having a

retrospective effect and therefore, the amendment of the

Absorption Rules has not in any way affected the admission

process for the current academic year since the Amendment

Rules are effective from 30.12.2011, whereas the last date for

filing of applications for the admission of Post-graduate was

31.12.2011.

40. It was also pointed out that Rule 5 of the Absorption

Rules have an over-riding effect as they are special rules of

appointment and therefore, the Rules of Deputation made

under Rule 61 of the KCSR read with Appendix-IIA do not

apply to the absorbed doctors. It was also contended that the

appellants had participated in the admission process and

they are estopped from challenging the criterion for selection.

It was also contended that the challenge to the Absorption

130

Rules could only be made before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal and not before the High Court. It

was further contended that the PGET Rules 2006 are special

rules for admission for medical and dental courses and they

have an over-riding effect on Deputation Rules enacted under

the Act.

41. The respondents in W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012 and

3020-3034/2012 through their counsel contended that the

Government Order dated 29.01.2010 specifically recognises

that the period of contract service must be recognised for the

purpose of deputation. Therefore, even if it is held that PGET

Rules 2006 do not over-ride the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR, having regard to the Government Order

dated 29.01.2010, the contract doctors were absorbed into

service are eligible to be deputed for higher studies. It was

also contended that the appellants cannot challenge the grant

of weightage under Rule 5A of the PGET Rules 2006 as they

are also beneficiaries of the weightage of marks given to them

and therefore, having participated in the admission process,

they are estopped from challenging the same.

131

42. Learned counsel for the private respondents stated that

learned Single Judge by interim order dated 15.05.2012

enabled the State Government to alter the merit list mid-way

pursuant to the interim order of stay granted by this Court in

May, 2012. This has led to these doctors file writ petitions.

43. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.7, 8 and 16,in W.A.Nos.3004-18/2012 at the outset

stated that the appellants cannot maintain a challenge to the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules as the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal is the forum to challenge a service

rule. That the learned Single Judge was right in holding that

the contract doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules of

2006 have the right to be deputed for Post-graduate courses.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 61 of the KCSR

is applicable, the eligibility for deputation is to be considered

after the merit list is published under the PGET Rules 2006

and that in the instant case the doctors absorbed under the

Rules 2006 have the eligibility to be admitted to the Post-

graduate courses. Therefore, the contention of some of the

132

appellants that the respondent-doctors had no eligibility even

to take the Entrance Test is incorrect as they had not

completed five years of regular service as required under the

Deputation Rules. It was also contended that the weightage

under Rule 5A has to be given having regard to the period of

contract service rendered by the absorbed doctors and the

said Rule cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary

since it is made in consonance with the dictum of the

Supreme Court and that only thirty marks maximum could

be awarded. Concluding the said contentions, learned Senior

Counsel stated that the doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules 2006, were eligible to be admitted for Post-

graduate medical courses on the basis of their merit. It was

also pointed out that after absorption of the contract doctors,

a common seniority list is prepared and all the doctors

appointed by direct recruitment or by regularisation form one

class and that there can be no discrimination within the said

class of doctors. That the doctors appointed under direct

recruitment have no vested rights vis-à-vis the absorbed

doctors and they have no reason to challenge the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules.

133

44. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the

decisions of the Apex Court in Mridhul Dhar -V/s- Union of

India (2005) 2 SCC 65) and two other decisions and it was

submitted that merit list prepared by the State Government

cannot be altered at this point of time since 31st May was the

last date for closing the admissions and therefore, the learned

Single Judge was not right in ordering re-counseling.

45. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants submitted that the doctors regularised under the

Absorption Rules 2006 have not questioned the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules, they have also accepted the

insertion of Rule 5A to the PGET Rules 2006. Their only plea

ultimately is that the Deputation Rules framed under the

KCSR would prevail over the PGET Rules 2006 since the

admission to Post-graduate courses is by way of deputation

for higher studies. Therefore, the Rules made under the Act

have an over-riding effect over all other laws and that the

PGET Rules 2006, which are made under the Capitation Fee

Act cannot over-ride the KCSR having regard to Section 12 of

134

the Capitation Fee Act and Section 14 of the Act. Moreover,

according to the appellants, these two rules operate in

different fields. It was also clarified that the Deputation Rules

is not a piece of subordinate legislation, but it is a part of the

Karnataka Civil Services Act, whereas the PGET Rules 2006

are delegated legislation, which cannot have an over-riding

effect on the Act.

46. It was also reiterated that when once the amendment

was made to the Absorption Rules by omitting the embargo

under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, then the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR was at once applicable to all in-service

doctors en bloc. It was also clarified that the appellants have

not questioned the participation of the doctors in the

admission process, but their contention is with regard to the

eligibility for sending the doctors for deputation when they

have not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 61 of the KCSR. It

was stated that the doctors absorbed under the Absorption

Rules 2006 are eligible to be deputed for Post-graduate

Course and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right

in ordering re-counseling of in-service candidates by taking

135

into consideration those doctors who were absorbed under

the 2007 and 2009 Rules also.

47. It was also contended by another Senior Counsel that

when once the contract doctors are absorbed into service,

they are lowest in the seniority list. There are certain terms

and conditions, subject to which, absorption has been made

and the conditions for absorption cannot be taken away with

retrospective effect. That the State Government has doubly

favoured the contract doctors inasmuch as the embargo

placed in the Absorption Rules have been omitted with

retrospective effect and also, weightage of marks to the

contract doctors is also permissible having regard to their

service rendered as contract doctors.

48. Learned counsel on both sides have relied upon certain

decisions in support of their respective contentions which

shall be referred to, during the course of this judgment.

136

Point for consideration:

49. Having regard to the legal matrix and the varied

submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and counsel on

both sides, the point that arises for our consideration is:

“Whether the learned Single Judge was right in

ordering maintenance of status quo in respect of the

counseling which had already taken place prior to

the grant of interim orders by this court and

directing the completion of the counseling process

for admission to Post-graduate Medical Courses

from the in-service category of doctors in terms of

the merit list prepared prior to the interim order

granted by this court?”

Analysis of Relevant Acts and Rules:

50. The Karnataka State Civil Service Act, 1978 is an Act to

regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of

persons appointed to Civil Service in the State of Karnataka

and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of

Karnataka. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 speaks

about the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service

of persons appointed to public services by way of Rules.

137

Clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 3 states that all rules

relating to matters referred to in sub-section (1) and in force

on the date of commencement of the Act made by the

Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution

of India, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service

of persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection

with the affairs of the State shall be deemed to be rules made

under sub-section (1) and shall continue in force until they

are modified or replaced by rules made under this Act. The

said Act received the assent of the President on the

12.07.1985 but came into force only on 30.05.1990. Rule 6

states that the Act and any rule made or deemed to have been

made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law with

respect to matters for which provision is made in this Act or

for which rules can be made under the Act. Sub-section (2) of

Section 8 states that 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 would have to be specified in

a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State

Legislature and subject to any modification made under sub-

138

section (3), every rule made under the Act has the effect as if

it is enacted in the Act. Owing to the aforesaid deeming

provisions Rule 61 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rule, 1958

read with Appendix-IIA which deals with deputation of or

grant of study leave to Government servants for prosecution

of special course of study consisting of higher studies or

specialised training within India are part and parcel of the

Act. Under the said Rule and Appendix, the Government may

depute a Government servant for higher studies or specialised

training in a professional or technical subject having a direct

and close connection with the sphere of his duty at a

recognised institution within the State or outside the State

but within India, if he or she has completed five years of

regular service and is below 48 years of age. The number of

Government servants to be deputed at any point of time for

higher studies or specialised training has to be kept at a

minimum, not exceeding 5% of the sanctioned permanent

strength of the concerned cadre. The selection of a candidate

for higher studies or specialised training has to be made

strictly on the basis of seniority except for reasons to be

recorded in writing.

139

51. The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of

Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Capitation Fee Act’) has been enacted to curb the evil practice

of collection of capitation fee for admission to educational

institutions in the State of Karnataka and to regulate certain

matters relating there to. The said Act received the assent of

the President on the 20.07.1984. Section 4 of the said Act

deals with regulation of admission to educational institutions,

on the basis of general or special orders, as may be made by

the Government in this behalf and any other law for the time

being in force, with regard to the minimum qualification for

admission to any course of study in an educational

institution, which as may be specified by the university

concerned where the educational institution is maintained by

or affiliated to such university or by the Government in the

case of other courses of study in any other educational

institution. It also regulates the maximum number of

students that could be admitted to the course of study in an

educational institution, which may be fixed by the

Government from time to time. Section 5 regulates tuition fee

140

or any other fee or deposit or other amount that may be

received or collected by any educational institution or class of

such institutions in respect of any or all class or classes of

students. Section 12 states that the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time

being in force. Section 14 enables the State Government to

make rules for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of

the Act.

555222... PPPGGGEEETTT RRRuuullleeesss 222000000666 hhhaaavvveee bbbeeeeeennn eeennnaaacccttteeeddd pppuuurrrsssuuuaaannnttt tttooo

SSSeeeccctttiiiooonnn 111444 ooofff ttthhheee CCCaaapppiiitttaaatttiiiooonnn FFFeeeeee AAAcccttt... CCClllaaauuussseeesss (((ccc))),,, (((ggg))) aaannnddd (((hhh))) ooofff

RRRuuullleee 222 ooofff ttthhheee sssaaaiiiddd RRRuuullleeesss dddeeefffiiinnneee EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt,,, IIInnn---ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee

CCCaaannndddiiidddaaattteeesss aaannnddd MMMeeerrriiittt rrreeessspppeeeccctttiiivvveeelllyyy... RRRuuullleee 333 dddeeeaaalllsss wwwiiittthhh

EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt,,, RRRuuullleee 444 ssspppeeeaaakkksss ooofff EEEllliiigggiiibbbiiillliiitttyyy tttooo aaappppppeeeaaarrr fffooorrr ttthhheee

EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt,,, wwwhhheeerrreeeaaasss RRRuuullleee 111000 dddeeeaaalllsss wwwiiittthhh ppprrroooccceeeddduuurrreee fffooorrr

ssseeellleeeccctttiiiooonnn ooofff iiinnn---ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee cccaaannndddiiidddaaattteeesss fffooorrr aaadddmmmiiissssssiiiooonnn tttooo PPPooosssttt---

gggrrraaaddduuuaaattteee MMMeeedddiiicccaaalll aaannnddd DDDeeennntttaaalll CCCooouuurrrssseeesss... TTThhhuuusss,,, ttthhheeerrreee aaarrreee

dddiiiffffffeeerrreeennnttt cccrrriiittteeerrriiiaaa ssspppeeeccciiifffiiieeeddd iiinnn RRRuuullleeesss 333,,, 444 aaannnddd RRRuuullleee 111000... FFFooorrr ttthhheee

pppuuurrrpppooossseee ooofff ssseeellleeeccctttiiiooonnn ooofff cccaaannndddiiidddaaattteeesss aaannnddd dddeeettteeerrrmmmiiinnnaaatttiiiooonnn ooofff mmmeeerrriiittt,,,

ttthhheee EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt iiisss cccooonnnddduuucccttteeeddd... IIInnnsssooofffaaarrr aaasss iiinnn---ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee

141

cccaaannndddiiidddaaattteeesss aaarrreee cccooonnnccceeerrrnnneeeddd,,, uuunnndddeeerrr RRRuuullleee 333(((222))) ttthhhooossseee wwwhhhooo hhhaaavvveee

cccooommmpppllleeettteeeddd ttthhhrrreeeeee yyyeeeaaarrrsss ooofff ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee aaannnddd sssuuucccccceeessssssfffuuullllllyyy cccooommmpppllleeettteeeddd

ttthhheee ppprrrooobbbaaatttiiiooonnnaaarrryyy pppeeerrriiioooddd aaasss ooonnn ttthhheee lllaaasssttt dddaaattteee ooofff rrreeeccceeeiiipppttt ooofff

aaappppppllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnnsss fffooorrr ttthhheee EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt cccaaannn aaapppppplllyyy ttthhhrrrooouuuggghhh ppprrrooopppeeerrr

ccchhhaaannnnnneeelll... TTThhheeerrreeefffooorrreee,,, fffooorrr ttthhheee pppuuurrrpppooossseee ooofff sssuuubbbmmmiiittttttiiinnnggg aaannn

aaappppppllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnn fffooorrr tttaaakkkiiinnnggg ttthhheee EEEnnntttrrraaannnccceee TTTeeesssttt tttwwwooo cccooonnndddiiitttiiiooonnnsss aaarrreee

ppprrreeessscccrrriiibbbeeeddd,,, ttthhheeeyyy aaarrreee;;; (((iii))) cccooommmpppllleeetttiiiooonnn ooofff ttthhhrrreeeeee yyyeeeaaarrrsss ooofff ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee...

IIInnniiitttiiiaaallllllyyy iiittt wwwaaasss ttthhhrrreeeeee yyyeeeaaarrrsss ooorrr rrreeeggguuulllaaarrr ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee,,, bbbuuuttt ttthhheee

eeexxxppprrreeessssssiiiooonnn ‘‘‘rrreeeggguuulllaaarrr’’’ hhhaaasss bbbeeeeeennn dddeeellleeettteeeddd,,, sssuuubbbssseeeqqquuueeennntttlllyyy,,, bbbyyy

CCCooorrrrrriiigggeeennnddduuummm dated 10.01.2007 and; (ii) as on the last date of

receipt of application for the Entrance Test, the in-service

candidate had to complete the probationary period. Of

course, when it comes to an in-service candidate, he must be

a person belonging to Health and Family Welfare Services and

other services as defined in Clause 2(g) of the PGET Rules

2006.

53. Rule 4 speaks of eligibility to appear for the Entrance

Test, which is a general provision. The eligibility criteria for

appearance in the Entrance Test are as follows:

142

(a) a candidate must be a citizen of India:

(b) he or she must have studied and passed in the

courses leading to the award of MBBS/BDS

Degree in Colleges recognised by Medical

Council of India/Dental Council of India,

Government of India established by law and

located in Karnataka State; or

(c) candidate must be of Karnataka origin who has

studied MBBS/BDS degrees in colleges outside

Karnataka recognised by Medical Council of

India/Dental Council of India and Government

of India and affiliated to any University

established by law in India.

The Explanation deals with “candidate of Karnataka

Origin”.

54. Rule 10 deals with the ppprrroooccceeeddduuurrreee fffooorrr ssseeellleeeccctttiiiooonnn ooofff iiinnn---

ssseeerrrvvviiiccceee cccaaannndddiiidddaaattteeesss fffooorrr aaadddmmmiiissssssiiiooonnn tttooo PPPooosssttt---gggrrraaaddduuuaaattteee MMMeeedddiiicccaaalll

aaannnddd DDDeeennntttaaalll cccooouuurrrssseeesss. The said Rule prescribes the following

conditions for admission:

(1) (a) that the in-service candidate has to have

atleast three years of regular service:

143

(b)he has satisfactorily completed the

prescribed period of probation;

(2) that an in-service candidate shall not be eligible

for admission in any subject other than the

speciality in which he is working;

(3) that an in-service candidate who is already

holding a Post-graduate degree in any speciality

shall not be eligible for admission to any other Post-

graduate degree or Diploma;

(4) that an in-service candidate who is already

holding a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality,

through Government deputation, shall be eligible for

admission to Post-graduate degree courses in the

same speciality and shall not be eligible for any

other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses;

(5) an in-service candidate who is studying in

any Post-graduate degree or Diploma Course shall

not be eligible for admission under these rules;

(6) a candidate who is above forty-eight years of

age as on the last date fixed for receipt of

application shall not be eligible for admission.

144

Answer to the point for consideration:

55. The controversy in these cases is with regard to the

eligibility of certain in-service candidates for Post-graduate

courses, be it degree or Diploma courses. Of course, the

study of the Post-graduate course is by way of deputation

insofar as the in-service candidates are concerned. However,

the conundrum is, as to whether in the matter of deputation

for these courses, the Rules of Deputation made under the

KCSR would apply or the admission to the said courses would

be on the basis of the PGET Rules, 2006. The Rules of

Deputation are made under the KCSR and have to be read as

part and parcel of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, but the

PGET Rules, 2006 are made under the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act and it specifically deals with admission for

the Post-graduate Courses. Therefore, the moot point for our

consideration is, as to whether the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR as well as the PGET Rules 2006 made under

the Capitation Fee Act have to be harmoniously read for the

purpose of admission of in-service candidates to Post-

graduate Medical and Dental Courses or it is either of the

said Rules which would have an over-riding effect on the

145

other and therefore, compliance with only one set of Rules is

required for admission to Post-graduate courses.

56. We have extracted and analysed the respective Rules

having regard to the object for which they have been enacted

as well as the conditions prescribed therein. If for the sake of

argument it is assumed that it is Rule 61 read with Appendix-

IIA of the KCSR (Deputation Rules), which are the only Rules

applicable for deputation of an in-service candidate for Post-

graduate studies, then the question would be as to whether

the eligibility criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006

would have to be given a go-by. It is noted that there are

more number of criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules,

2006 at the stage of application for an Entrance Test,

eligibility to appear for an Entrance Test and for admission to

a Post-graduate course that is, at three stages. On the other

hand, the Deputation Rule framed under Rule 61 of the KCSR

is a general rule concerning deputation of all Government

servants for higher studies or other training based on

seniority, except for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

Under the said Rules of Deputation, a Government servant is

146

not required to apply for or appear for an Entrance Test.

Under the said Rules, the selection of a candidate for higher

studies or specialised training is made strictly on the basis of

seniority and the number of Government servants to be

deputed at any point of time for higher studies or specialised

training has to be at a minimum, not exceeding 5% of the

sanctioned permanent strength of the concerned cadre.

Whereas under the PGET Rules, 2006 specific conditions are

prescribed for application to an Entrance Test, eligibility to

take the Entrance Test and for admission to a Post-graduate

course. The varied conditions which have been listed supra

are conspicuous by their absence in the Deputation Rules for

higher studies under the KCSR. In other words, even if a

Government servant fulfills the conditions prescribed under

Rule 61 read with Appendix-IIA of the Deputation Rules, he or

she would not be eligible for admission to a Post-graduate

course unless and until he/she fulfills the eligibility criteria

ever for the application for the Entrance Test, eligibility to

take Entrance Test as well as the admission for the Post-

graduate Courses. One cannot lose sight of the fact that we

are concerned with deputation for Post-graduate course in

147

Medical/Dental Course and not any other course. Therefore,

the eligibility criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006

necessarily have to be fulfilled by an in-service candidate

irrespective of whether such a candidate has fulfilled the

conditions prescribed under Rule 61 of the KCSR read with

Appendix-IIA.

57. The bone of contention in these cases, however, is with

regard to the completion of the requisite number of years of

service for being deputed for higher studies. Under the

Deputation Rules, it is five years of regular service. However,

under the PGET Rules 2006 for the purpose of application for

the entrance test, it is only three years of service. Whereas,

when it comes to the stage of admission to Post-graduate

Courses, it is three years of regular service. In addition, an

in-service candidate would have to complete the prescribed

period of probation. Such a condition is also necessary at the

time of making the application. But under Rule 61 of KCSR

all that is stated is five years of regular service, the

requirement of completion of probation is not necessary.

Similarly, under Rule 10 there are other conditions which

148

have to be fulfilled by an in-service candidate before he/she is

admitted to a Post-graduate course, the same are stated

supra. Two significant conditions can be mentioned at this

stage. One is that, an in-service candidate who is already

holding a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality, through

Government deputation, would be eligible for admission to

Post-graduate degree courses in the same speciality and

secondly, any in-service candidate who is already holding a

Post-graduate degree in any speciality shall not be eligible for

any other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses. This can

only mean that if a candidate has secured a Diploma in any

speciality on the basis of the deputation made by the

Government, then he shall be eligible for Post-graduate

degree course in the same speciality, but would not be eligible

for any other Post-graduate degree or Diploma in other

speciality. In other words, an in-service candidate can obtain

a Diploma or a degree in the same speciality, but not in any

other speciality. That apart, a candidate who is above 48

years of age on the last date fixed for receipt of application is

ineligible for admission. Therefore, the conditions prescribed

under the PGET Rules, 2006 are more rigorous at every stage

149

of selection and admission and have to be satisfied by an in-

service candidate before he/she is admitted to a Post-

graduate degree/diploma course despite being qualified under

the Deputation Rules.

58. The specific controversy, however, is with regard to the

condition prescribed in the PGET Rules 2006 that an in-

service candidate who has put in three years of service as on

the last date of receipt of application is eligible to apply for the

Entrance Test whereas the condition under Rule 61 of the

KCSR pertaining to deputation of Government servants for

higher studies it is the completion of five years of regular

service. This controversy assumes importance in the context

of doctors appointed by direct recruitment and contract

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules. The

appointment by direct recruitment is the usual mode of

appointment. Since the State Government for various

reasons did not resort to direct recruitment, but appointed

doctors on contract basis, the need to regularise them arose

and Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009 were made.

Therefore, the terms and conditions for appointment of

150

doctors by direct recruitment are distinct from the terms and

conditions of Absorption of contract doctors, which are made

under special Rules of Absorption, whereas recruitment

under the Recruitment Rules are general Rules. Of course,

once the contract doctors are absorbed into service, a

common seniority list of the directly recruited doctors and the

absorbed doctors would be formulated. Under the Absorption

Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, the contract doctors subsequent

to Absorption had to work atleast for a period of six years

from the date of Absorption in rural areas and were not to be

deputed for higher studies during that period. The State

Government felt that this condition placed on the contract

doctors who are absorbed under the Absorption Rules with

regard to being ineligible for deputation for higher studies for

a period of six years was a stringent condition. Particularly,

having regard to the fact that insofar as directly recruited

doctors had to complete only five years of regular service for

being eligible to be deputed for higher studies under the

Deputation Rules. It is under these circumstances, that the

State Government omitted the clause pertaining to ineligibility

for deputation for higher studies for a period of six years

151

pursuant to absorption under the Absorption Rules. As a

result, of the omission of the said condition from the

Absorption Rules, the contract doctors who were absorbed

into regular service became eligible for deputation for higher

studies even during the period of service in rural areas or in

other words within a period of six years from the date of

absorption.

59. It is in this background, that the in-service candidates

appointed by direct recruitment as well as the doctors who

were absorbed under the Absorption Rules of 2006 have a

grievance with regard to the amendment made to the

Absorption Rules by way of omission of the condition

regarding eligibility for deputation for higher studies. Of

course, the directly recruited doctors have assailed the

Amendment Rules made to the Absorption Rules, whereas

those doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules of 2006

have not assailed the said Rules.

60. While considering the respective contentions of the

learned counsel on both sides, what becomes clear is the fact

152

that doctors appointed by direct recruitment as well as

doctors appointed initially on contract basis and

subsequently absorbed into regular service are a class apart

and form two distinct categories and the classification

between these two categories of doctors are on the basis of an

intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object sought to

be achieved. Therefore, we are of the view that the doctors

appointed by direct recruitment cannot maintain a challenge

to the terms and conditions of the absorption of the contract

doctors as the Absorption Rules are Special Rules and in no

way have any adverse impact on the terms and conditions of

appointment of the doctors appointed by direct recruitment.

On the other hand, the State Government has saved the

status and position of doctors appointed by direct recruitment

in Rule 4 of the Absorption Rules by stating that the service

rendered by a person as a contract doctor prior to the date of

absorption shall not count for the purpose of seniority,

granting of promotion as specialist under the Time Bound

Advancement Scheme or for Grant Selection Time Scale of

Pay etc. On the other hand, Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules

states that all the rules regulating the conditions and service

153

of the Government servants insofar as they are inconsistent

with the provisions of the Absorption Rules shall not apply to

persons absorbed under the Absorption Rules which are as

stated above special rules and which are also made under

Section 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services Act. Therefore, the

Absorption Rules are Special Rules and the absorbed doctors

are a special category of doctors. The controversy, however,

does not end.

61. In the context of admission to Post-graduate Courses by

deputation of doctors is concerned, the grievance of the

appellants is with regard to the omission of the condition that

the contract doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules

shall not be deputed for higher studies during a period of six

years from the date of absorption by virtue of the Amendment

Rules. The said amendment to the Absorption Rules are

made with retrospective effect from 30.12.2011 i.e., the date

when the Draft Rules were published as stated in the Draft

Rules itself and therefore, the contention of the appellants is

that the amendment to the Absorption Rules omitting such a

condition with retrospective effect is arbitrary, unreasonable

154

and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

as they have been made after the process of selection for Post-

graduate courses commenced. Such a contention cannot be

accepted for two reasons. Firstly, because as stated above,

the doctors appointed by way of direct recruitment from a

distinct class as opposed to contract doctors regularised

under the Absorption Rules and secondly, the Absorption

Rules themselves are made under Section 8 of the Karnataka

Civil Services Act which permits rules to be made with

retrospective effect. Therefore, the appellants have also

contended that if the omission of the condition made by the

Amendment Rules is held to be valid, then in that case Rule

61 read with Appendix-IIA of the KCSR (Deputation Rules)

would automatically occupy the field and it is only those

doctors who have put in five years of regular service and are

below 45 years of age would be entitled for deputation and

therefore, the contract doctors absorbed under Absorption

Rules 2007 and 2009 are doctors who have not completed five

years of regular service would be ineligible to be deputed for

Post-graduate studies as in-service candidates.

155

62. It is in this context that Rule 61 of the KCSR pertaining

to deputation for higher studies and the PGET Rules of 2006

have to be considered together. As already analysed above,

the PGET Rules, 2006 have several conditions to be fulfilled

by in-service candidates before they can be admitted for Post-

graduate Courses which conditions are not found in Rule 61

of the KCSR. The object and purpose of the PGET Rules,

2006 is to select the most meritorious candidates for Post-

graduate Courses even within the in-service quota, on the

basis of the conditions prescribed under the Rules at the

stage of application for the Entrance Test, at the stage of

appearance for the Entrance Test and finally at the stage of

admission to the Post-graduate courses. It is also noted that

even if an in-service candidate fulfills the condition of Rule 61

of the KCSR, he would not be entitled to admission for a Post-

graduate course until and unless he fulfills the conditions

prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006. The Deputation

Rules on the other hand, do not deal with the necessity of

taking an Entrance Test for being selected and admitted to a

Post-graduate Medical or Dental Course. The PGET Rules

156

2006 are thus “Special Rules” framed by the State

Government in the matter of admission to Post-graduate

Medical and Dental Courses both degree and Diploma of

pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in Gopal

D.Thirthani and Regulation 9 of the PGME Regulations.

Regulation 9 of the said Regulation reads as follows:

“6. Regulation 9 of the Regulations framed by the

Medical Council of India reads as follows:

“9. Selection of postgraduate students-(1)

Students for postgraduate medical courses shall

be selected strictly on the basis of their academic

merit.

For determining the academic merit, the

university/institution may adopt any one of the

following procedures both for degree and diploma

courses:

on the basis of merit as determined by a

competitive test conducted by the State

Government or by the competitive authority

appointed by the State Government or by the

university/group of universities in the same State;

on the basis of merit as determined by centralised

157

test held at the national level; or

on the basis of the individual cumulative

performance at the first, second and third MBBS

examinations, if such examination have been

passed from the same university; or

combination of (i) and (iii):

Provided that whatever entrance test for

postgraduate admissions is held by a State

Government or a university or any other authorised

examining body, the minimum percentage of marks

for eligibility for admission to postgraduate

medical course shall be fifty per cent for all the

candidates:

Provided further that in non-governmental

institutions fifty per cent of the total seats shall be

filled by the competent authority and the

remaining fifty per cent by the management of the

institution on the basis of merit.”

63. Having regard to the aforesaid Regulations, the State

Government has framed the PGET Rules 2006 prescribing not

only the mode of selection for admission to Post-graduate

courses both medical and dental, but also the eligibility of the

158

candidates for prosecuting such courses. The object of PGET

Rules 2006 is to select and admit those candidates who are

meritorious having secured 50% atleast in the Entrance Test,

provided they have the eligibility to apply and take the exam

as well as being admitted to the course. The Apex court

in several decisions has emphasised on the need to maintain

merit in the matter of selection and admission of candidates

for professional courses, particularly at the level of Post-

graduate and Super Speciality Courses. Therefore, in the

instant case, we cannot lost sight of the fact that admissions

are being made to Post-graduate Medical Courses, where

merit is the overwhelming condition for admission of all the

candidates, in-service or non-service, who have to take a

common Entrance Test and but for a separate stream of

admission being kept apart, the in-service candidates would

have otherwise competed with the non-service candidates.

The prescription of the eligibility criteria under the PGET

Rules 2006 would therefore, prevail over any other Rules of

Deputation made as a condition of service for higher studies.

In the instant case what we have discerned is the eligibility

for admission to Post-graduate course and not a mere

159

deputation for higher studies. The selection and admission

for a Post-graduate course is circumscribed by certain terms

and conditions prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006 which

are common both with regard to in-service candidates as well

as those candidates who are not in service. But as far as in-

services candidates are concerned, certain additional

prescriptions are made under the PGET Rules 2006 and it

has already been observed that these additional prescriptions

are absent in the KCSR. Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006

being Special Rules for admission to a Post-graduate Course

would obviously prevail over the Rule 61 of the KCSR, which

is a general rule for deputation. Also, an in-service candidate,

merely on the basis of his seniority cannot be sent for

deputation and admitted to a Post-graduate course, unless he

qualifies under PGET 2006 Rules. Moreover, under the

Deputation Rules, it is only upto 5% of the sanctioned

permanent strength of the concerned cadre that can be

deputed for higher studies. Whereas, under the PGET Rules

2006 within the seat matrix, certain percentage of seats are

categorised as Government seats as opposed to Management

seats and within the quota of Government seats, certain seats

160

are ear-marked for in-service candidates in which there is

reservation of seats for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe

as per Rule 12 of the PGET Rules 2006. Therefore, there are

numerous conditions which have to be complied with by an

in-service candidate before becoming eligible for admission for

a Post-graduate course though by way of deputation. It is for

all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the PGET Rules, 2006

would prevail over the Deputation Rules in the matter of

admission to Post-graduate courses in Medical. In other

words the PGET Rules 2006 have an over-riding effect over

the Deputation Rules made under KCSR.

64. Section 6 of the Act states that the Act and any Rule

made or deemed to have been made thereunder would have

effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law with respect to matters for which

provision is made in the Act or for which Rules can be made

under the Act. At the same time, Section 12 of the Capitation

Fee Act also states that the provisions of the said Act would

have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contain in any other law for the time being in force.

161

65. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the appellants has

brought to our notice these two provisions to contend that

ultimately, the Rules made under the Act would prevail over

the Rules made under the Capitation Fee Act. On a

comparative reading of the two provisions, we note that they

are made in two different enactments whose objects are

totally alien to each other. However, the overlapping aspect is

with regard to deputation of in-service doctors for Post-

graduate studies. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, under

the Act provision is made only for the deputation of in-service

doctors for higher studies based on seniority, the number of

years of regular service and the age factor. No provision is

made with regard to the eligibility for selection and admission

on the basis of merit. In fact, Rule 61 of the KCSR read with

Appendix-II are silent on this aspect. On the other hand, the

PGET rules 2006 made under the provision of Capitation Act

deals with not only the number of years of requisite service,

the maximum age limit and also eligibility being based on

merit. In fact Section 12 of the Capitation Fee Act provides

for an over-riding effect of the provisions of the Act

162

notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other

law for the time being in force. The Deputation Rules made

under KCSR were in force prior to the enactment of the

Capitation Fee Act. However, it is the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act which would prevail over any other law for

the time being in force in view of the non-obstante clause in

Section 12.

66. In this context, Section 4 of the Capitation Fee Act

provides for the minimum qualification for admission, the

maximum students who could be admitted to the course of

study and the reservation of seats. Further, pursuant to the

directions in Gopal Thirthani, Regulation 9 of the PGME

Regulations have been made which also speaks about merit

determined by a competitive test. These Regulations are

framed by the Medical Council of India, which is the

Authority responsible for maintaining standards in medical

education through out India. Therefore, for these reasons

also, we hold that the PGET Rules 2006 have an over-riding

effect over the Deputation Rules made under the KCSR.

163

67. Section 8 of the Act empowers the State Government to

make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act with

retrospective effect and when such a Rule is made, the

reasons for making the Rule has to be specified in a

statement to be laid in both Houses of the State Legislature

and subject to any modification, every Rule made under the

Act has the effect as if it is enacted in the Act. The

Absorption Rules have been made by virtue of Rule 8 of the

Act.

68. It is a settled position in law that if on a particular

subject several rules have been made, the Special Rules

would always prevail over the general rules vide Maya

Mathew V/s. State of Kerala & others (2010) 4 SCC 498).

In the instant case, we have held that the PGET Rules 2006

are Special Rules of admission for Post-graduate Courses

which also take into consideration the deputation of in-

service candidates for such courses. They are special rules

with regard to deputation for higher studies, which would

prevail over the general rules of deputation under the KCSR.

164

69. Since we have held that it is only the PGET Rules 2000,

which have to be considered for the purpose of deputation for

Post-graduate studies from the category of in-service

candidates, we also hold that the decision of this Court in

Dr.Ranganath’s case under which three separate merit lists

were prepared based on the length of service of the in-service

candidates completed were upheld and also the interim order

of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15539/2011 dated

01.05.2011 and the subsequent order of the Division Bench

dated 07.06.2011 are not relevant for the present controversy.

Even if for a moment it is considered that the PGET Rules,

2006 do not have an over-riding effect over the Deputation

Rules, even then, having regard to the amendment made to

the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which we uphold

it would not be now necessary to prepare three separate merit

lists of in-service doctors as all doctors absorbed under the

said Absorption Rules are eligible to take the Entrance Test

provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under

PGET Rules. We hold that amendments made to the

Absorption Rules are valid. Firstly because, they are made

under Rule 8 of the Act which itself permits making Rules

165

with retrospective effect and secondly, because the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules would have no

impact on the right of the directly recruited doctors to

participate in the admission process to Post-graduate

Courses, as the directly recruited doctors and the contract

doctors who have been subsequently absorbed fall into

different classes. That apart, the effect of the amendments

made to the Absorption Rules have enlarged the scope of

eligibility of in-service candidates and has not taken away the

vested right of in-service candidate from participating in the

selection and admission process. Therefore, the amendment

made with retrospective effect i.e., from 30.12.2011, prior to

the last date of filing of applications for the Entrance Test are

legal and valid.

70. In N.T.Devin Katti & others -V/s- KPSC & others

(1990)3 SCC 157) the Apex Court has held thus:

“If the recruitment Rules are amended

retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in

that event selection must be held in accordance

166

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 does acquire a vested right of being considered

for selection is 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.”

167

71. In the case of P.D.Aggarwal & others V/s. State of

U.P. & others (1987) 3 SCC 622) also the Apex Court has

held that the Government has got the power under proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution to make such rules and to

amend them giving retrospective effect. Nevertheless, such

retrospective amendments cannot take away the vested rights

and the amendments must be reasonable, not arbitrary or

discriminatory and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. To the same effect are the observations in the

case of Union of India & others V/s. Tushar Ranjan

Mohanty & others (1994) 5 SCC 450).

72. There can be no contrary view to the aforesaid

observations of the Apex Court. However, in the instant case

Section 8 of the Act specifically empowers the State

Government to make rules with retrospective effect. It is on

the strength of the said provision that the amendments have

been made to the Absorption Rules of the Act. That apart, by

the amendments made to the Absorption Rules, no vested

right of the appellants for being considered for selection and

admission for Post-graduate Medical Courses in terms of their

168

merit have been taken away. In the instant case, the

amendments are made to the Absorption Rules with effect

from 30.12.2011 i.e., prior to the last date for submission of

applications to appear in the Entrance Test by the said

Amendment Rules. The right of the appellants who were

absorbed under Absorption Rules 2006 to be considered for

selection and admission has not been deprived. Their rights

have remained intact. On the other hand, the effect of the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules is to enlarge the

scope of eligibility to the doctors who have been absorbed

under the Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009.

73. As far as the appellants who are the direct recruits are

concerned, they are a class apart and cannot fall into the

same category as the contract doctors who have been

absorbed into service. Therefore, their right to be selected

and admitted is totally unaffected by the amendment made to

the Absorption Rules. Whereas, as far as contract doctors

absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 is concerned, the

amendment in fact enures to their benefit. It is for this

reason that they have not assailed the amendment made to

169

Absorption Rules, 2006. Even this class of doctors cannot

have any grievance to the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules of 2007 and 2009 having regard to the fact that the

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 are

themselves the beneficiaries of the amendment and their right

to selection and admission to Post-graduate Courses is

unaffected. Therefore, the amendments in no way take away

the vested rights of the contract doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules, 2006. Therefore, the amendments made to

the Absorption Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 are valid.

74. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the

respondents has relied upon the following decisions with

regard to the permissibility of the retrospective operation of

Rules. In the case of State Bank’s Staff Union (Madras

Circle) V/s. Union of India and others (2005 (7) SCC 584)

it has been held that:

“31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that vested rights cannot be taken away by the

170

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."

75. To the same effect are Bhubaneshwar Singh &

another V/s. Union of India & others (1994) 6 SCC 77),

K.V.Subba Rao & others V/s. Government of Andhra

Pradesh & others (1988) 2 SCC 201) and Dr. Indrani

171

Pyarelal gupta & others V/s. W.R.Natu & others (AIR

1963 SCC 274). Since Section 8 of the Act itself permits the

Rule making authority to make Rule with retrospective effect

as State Government Rules are valid and as they have effect

prior to the last date for receipt of application for the

Entrance Test, there can be no grievance on the score.

76. In Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd & another V/s.

State of Haryana & others (2006) 3 SCC 620) and

N.T.Devin Katti & others V/s. Karnataka Public Service

Commission & others (1990) 3 SCC 157) also Recruitment

Rules were amended retrospectively during the pendency of

selection, in that event selection must be held in terms of the

Amended Rule, is the dicta of the Apex Court. The said

analogy would also apply for selection and admission to

professional courses.

77. The next issue to be considered is with regard to the

maintainability of a challenge to a service rule before the High

Court as opposed to the Administrative Tribunal. In

L.Chandra Kumar V/s. Union of India & others (1997) 3

172

SCC 261) the Apex Court has held that though

Administrative Tribunals are competent to hear matters

where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned, but in

discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the

High Courts and the Supreme court which have, under our

constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such

an obligation. Their function in this respect is only

supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be

subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective

High Courts. Though the Tribunals act as the courts of first

instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have

been constituted and the litigants would have to approach the

Tribunals prior to approaching the High Court, but having

regard to the fact that the quintessence of the controversy in

these cases is with regard to the selection and admission of

in-service doctors to Post-graduate Medical Courses and the

challenge made to the amendment to the Absorption Rules is

also one of the questions to be determined, we are of the view

that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that

the appellants had to first approach the Administrative

Tribunal, assailing the amendment made to the Absorption

173

Rules and then approach this Court with regard to the

admission for Post-graduate medical courses.

78. Learned Single Judge was also not right in placing

reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Rajeev Kumar & another V/s. Hemraj Singh Chauhan &

others (2010) 4 SCC 554). In the said case, the appellants

therein had tried to implead themselves at the stage when the

matter was before the High Court, whereas they were not

parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is

under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the

appellants could not approach the High Court directly by

treating it as the Court of first instance.

79. Even otherwise, the amendment to the Absorption Rules

is closely linked with the eligibility criteria prescribed under

the PGET Rules 2006, which we have held have an over-

riding effect on the Deputation Rules. It is in order to create

a level playing field for all in-service category candidates,

whether appointed by regular recruitment or by way of

absorption that the embargo on deputation for higher studies

174

for a period of six years immediately after absorption has

been omitted. The main issue in these cases is with regard to

eligibility of the in-service doctors to be admitted to post-

graduate medical course. The challenge to the amendment to

Absorption Rules is only incidental. Therefore, this High

Court has the jurisdiction to consider a challenge made to

Service Rules in the context of admission of in-service doctors

to Post-graduate medical courses. Therefore, that portion of

the order of the learned Single Judge that no challenge to a

Service Rule is permissible before this Court is set aside.

80. This leaves us with the consideration of one other

contention pertaining to the validity of Rule 5A of the PGET

Rules, 2006 granting weightage to those in-service candidates

who have rendered service in rural areas. The said Rule was

inserted by the Amendment Rules of 2011 by virtue of

notification dated 18.01.2011. However, it was withdrawn

with immediate effect on 07.03.2011, but was revived with

effect from 07.04.2011. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A pertains to

the giving of weightage of four marks for each completed year

of service beyond five years of service to the marks secured in

175

the Entrance Test subject to maximum of thirty marks,

provided the candidate has secured the minimum qualifying

marks. The proviso states that for each completed year of

rural service beyond five years of service, a weightage of eight

marks would be added to the marks secured in the Entrance

Test instead of four marks, subject to maximum of thirty

marks. ‘Rural Service’ has been explained to include the

service rendered in rural areas under the contract period as

well as rural service rendered under the Rural Weightage

Selection. The challenge is made to the proviso as it

prescribes eight marks in lieu of four marks to the doctors

who have served in rural areas and secondly, that the

weightage of eight marks is unreasonable. The Supreme

Court in Gopal Thirthani has held that weightage given for

rural service is valid provided it is reasonable.

81. In the instant case, insofar as non-rural service is

concerned, four marks for each completed year of service

beyond five years of service are added. But insofar as rural

service is concerned, it is eight marks. In other words, it is

the double the marks awarded in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A. In

176

that view of the matter, it cannot be held to be unreasonable.

In fact, the weightage of marks could have been ‘1’ mark for

non-rural service and ‘2’ marks for rural service or ‘2’ marks

for non-rural service and ‘4’ marks for rural service. Instead

it is fixed at ‘4’ marks for non-rural service and ‘8’ marks for

rural service. This is a matter, which is within the wisdom of

the rule making authority and this court cannot sit in

judgment over the quantum of marks awarded for rural

service. That apart, the challenge made to the award of eight

marks for rural service is made by those appellants who are

themselves beneficiaries of the award of four marks for each

complete year of service beyond five years under sub-rule(1)

or Rule 5A. The maximum marks that can be awarded is

thirty only. This Rule has been in force from 18.01.2011 or at

any rate from 07.04.2011. The appellants were well aware of

this Rule and they have participated in the selection and

admission process for Post-graduate course. They are

therefore, estopped from challenging the Rule.

82. In State of Jharkhand V/s. Ashok Kumar Dangi

(2011) 13 SCC 383) it has been held that where candidates

177

appeared for the exam without challenging the retrospective

amendment of the eligibility conditions and participated in

the selection process without any demur, they would not be

permitted to challenge the retrospective amendments after the

declaration of result. To the same effect is Dhananjay Malik

& others V/s. State of Uttaranchal & others (2008) 4 SCC

171). In this case, as observed, the Rule granting weightage

is in force since 07.04.2011 long prior to the notification

dated 21.11.2011 calling upon eligible candidates to apply for

the Entrance Test.

83. The State Government by Circular dated 11.04.2012

published the Draft Rank List prepared by allotting service

weightage marks to depute the in-service doctors for Post-

graduate studies for the year 2012-2013. The Draft Rank List

is in three parts. Those in-service candidates who have

completed above five years of service; those candidates who

have completed above four years of service; and thirdly, those

candidates who have completed above three years of service.

The same was objected to by certain doctors by placing

reliance on the Rule 61 of the KCSR and the interim order of

178

the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2011 passed in

W.P.Nos.15539-42/2011 as well as the confirmatory order of

the Division Bench. Subsequently, they challenged the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules, 2007 and 2009

giving retrospective effect from 30.12.2011. By interim order

dated 15.05.2012, the amendments to the Absorption Rules

were stayed by this Court. As a result, the State Government

prepared another merit list excluding those in-service

candidates who were absorbed into service pursuant to the

2007 and 2009 Absorption Rules. Consequently, the in-

service candidates who were excluded from the merit list, filed

writ petitions seeking quashing of Circular dated 15.05.2012

and to allow the petitioners to appear for counseling to be

held on 17.05.2012 as per the notification dated 04.05.2012.

It is under these circumstances, that the learned Single

Judge by interim order dated 24.05.2012 directed

maintenance of status quo in respect of the counseling which

had already taken place and had stayed further counseling.

84. The only other controversy is, with regard to the State

Government preparing a fresh merit list pursuant to the

179

Interim Order of stay granted by this court on 15.05.2012,

staying the operation of the amendments made to the

Absorption Rules to 2006, 2007 and 2009. On account of the

order of stay granted by this court, the State Government

applied Rule 61 of the KCSR and selected only those

candidates who had completed five years of regular service

and who are below 48 years of age while revising merit list as

the initial merit list comprised of in-service doctors who had

completed three years of regular service. In this context, the

case of the doctors regularised under the Absorption Rules of

2006 is slightly different from the case of doctors regularised

pursuant to regular Absorption Rules of 2007 and 2009. As

far as the contract doctors appointed under the Absorption

Rules of 2006 is concerned, what is contended is, since under

Rule 61 of the KCSR, they have completed five years of

regular service, in the year 2011, they were eligible to take the

Entrance Test, but the doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules 2007 and 2009, were not eligible to take the

Entrance Test since they had not completed five years of

regular service under the Deputation Rules. It has been held

that Rule 61 of the KCSR (Deputation Rules) are not at all

180

applicable as in the matter of admission to Post-graduate

courses under the PGET Rules, 2006 in-service doctors who

have completed three years of regular service and who are

eligible under various eligibility criteria prescribed under the

PGET Rules 2006 and who have taken the Entrance Test and

have secured a minimum of 50% are eligible to be considered

for admission. In that view of the matter, the State

Government could not have excluded the doctors absorbed

under the 2007 and 2009 Rules from the merit list pursuant

to the interim order dated 15.05.2012 granted by this court.

For that matter, even directly recruited doctors who have

completed three years of regular service and have taken the

Entrance Test have to be considered while drawing up of the

merit list. In the circumstances, the merit list prepared by the

State Government excluding all doctors who have not

completed five years of regular service is illegal and requires

to be quashed. The State Government has to prepare the

merit list of all in-service candidates who have completed

three years of regular service by also taking into consideration

Government Order dated 29.01.2010 which has been upheld

by this Court on 26.04.2010 and have completed the period of

181

probation for the purpose of admission to the Post-graduate

courses subject to fulfilling of other conditions prescribed under

the PGET Rules 2006.

85. In view of our findings, we direct the extension of time for

the completion of counseling process for admission to Post-

graduate Medical Courses for the in-sesrvice category of doctors

by ten days from today as per the common merit list prepared

prior to the interim order dated 15.05.2012 and keeping in mind

all eligibility criteria prescribed under PGET Rules 2006.

86. While we issue the aforesaid direction, we are also

conscious of the directions and observations of the Supreme

Court in the case of Mridul dhar (Minor) & another V/s. Union

of India & others (2005) 2 SCC 65), Medical council of India

V/s. Manas Ranjan Behera & others (2010) 1 SCC 173) and

also the more recent decision in the case of Priya Gupta V/s.

State of Chhatisgarh (Civil Appeal No.4318/2012 disposed

of on 08.05.2012). However, with all due respect and

deference to the Apex Court, this Court has been constrained to

intervene in these matters having regard to the nature of

182

controversy touching upon the process of selection and rule of

merit, as in the instant case, there was no certainty with regard

to the merit list itself having regard to the claims and counter

claims raised by various groups within the in-service category

and the impact of the interim order dated 15.05.2012 on the

merit list which was altered owing to the stay of the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules. Therefore, we think it was the

duty of this Court to resolve the controversy in such a manner,

that ultimately, merit would prevail in the matter of selection

and admission to the Post-graduate Courses for the year 2012-

2013. It is, in these circumstances, that this Court has been

under a duty to intervene in these matters. In the result, the

appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGES*Index: Y/N

Documents

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE ...judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 06 TH DAY OF AUGUST,