Partly allowed

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2012WP/30238/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notification appointing Dr. K.M. Shiva Kumar as Medical Superintendent after his term expired. The High Court held that the appointment did not comply with MCI qualification requirements and quashed the notification, directing proper reselection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notification dated 21.8.2012 quashed. 3rd respondent directed to re-select qualified Medical Superintendent within one month.

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

WP No.30238/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.30238 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR.N.RAMALINGE GOWDA S/O NIJIYAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS WORKING AS MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, MANDYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES MANDYA – 571 401 … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, ADV. FOR M/s. P.S.RAJAGOPAL ASSTS., ADVS.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SEC. TO GOVT. MEDICAL EDUCATION, DEPT. OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001

¶13

MANDYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, MANDYA – 571 401 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶14

GOVERNING COUNCIL MANDYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, MANDYA – 571 401 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

WP No.30238/2012

¶16

¶17

DR.K.M.SHIVA KUMAR MAJOR FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN THE DEPT. OF MEDICINE, MANDYA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES MANDYA – 571 401

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.H.B.NARAYAN, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3 SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT, ADV. FOR R4)

¶20

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records leading to the order dated 21.8.2012 and etc.

¶21

This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has called in question a notification dated 21.8.2012 produced at Annexure-Q issued by respondent No.1.

¶24

Respondent No.1 issued the notification inter-alia appointing respondent No.4 as Medical Superintendent to 2^nd respondent – Institute of Medical Sciences.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner who

¶26

was working in the State Government as a Medical Officer,

¶27

WP No.30238/2012

¶28

¶29

was promoted from time to time. 23 persons working in the District Hospital, Mandya were re-deployed to the 2^nd respondent – Institute of Medical Sciences. Accordingly, the petitioner reported to duty and was absorbed into the services and re-designated. By notification dated 20.8.2009, petitioner was appointed as Medical Superintendent of the 2^nd respondent – Institution. However, the 1^st respondent, without jurisdiction, removed the petitioner from the said post curtailing the period for which he was posted, by notification dated 20.8.2009, as against the said notification

¶30

the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.7241/2011. While the writ petition was pending, it was submitted that a complaint is pending against the petitioner. However, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the said writ petition, dismissed the same on its merit.

¶31

As against the order of the learned Single Judge, petitioner had filed WA No.3395/2012. While the writ appeal was pending, the Government passed an order withdrawing the order dated 9.2.2011 under which the petitioner was removed from the post of Medical Superintendent. In view of

¶32

WP No.30238/2012

¶33

¶34

the same, writ appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous. Accordingly, the petitioner was re-posted to the post of Medical Superintendent. Thereafter, the present impugned order is passed on the ground that the term of the petitioner is completed. It is this order which is called in question in this writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,

¶36

the removal of the petitioner from the post of Medical Superintendent was illegal. The State Government itself in WA No.3395/2012 had made a submission that the order dated 9.2.2011 removing the petitioner is withdrawn and accordingly, the petitioner was re-posted to the post of Medical Superintendent. Without any reason the Government, erroneously, has again passed the impugned order. He further submitted that the 4^th respondent being not qualified to hold the said post, he has been posted in the place of the petitioner.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

2^nd and 3^rd respondents submitted that the 2^nd respondent

¶39

WP No.30238/2012

¶40

¶41

acted in pursuance of the decision of the Government, accordingly, 4^th respondent has been appointed as Medical Superintendent.

¶42

Sri.M.S.Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that the 4^th respondent is fully qualified as per the Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of the 4^th respondent as his period of appointment was only three years and once the said period is expired, the petitioner has no right to question the order of appointment of the 4^th respondent. He also submitted that the petitioner was absorbed as Assistant Professor and was not qualified to be appointed and even then, he was appointed as Medical Superintendent. When the respondent No.4 is qualified to be appointed, there is no reason to interfere with the said order, much less at the instance of the petitioner.

¶43

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submitted that the Government has issued

¶44

WP No.30238/2012

¶45

¶46

the notification appointing the 4^th respondent on the basis of relevant material and also in view of the expiry of the term for which the petitioner was appointed. He also submits that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed only for a period of three years and that period has already come to an end.

¶47

The State Government, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are required to appoint the Medical Superintendent for the 2^nd respondent – Institution, in terms of the Regulation framed by the MCI. The requisite qualification prescribed under the said Regulation is that the candidate must possess post graduation medical qualification from a recognised Institution with 10 years administrative experience.

¶48

It is not in dispute that all the Medical Institutions

¶49

are governed by the MCI Regulations. However, to my surprise, the Government has not referred to any qualification, there is no material to show that the State Government had considered the qualification before the issue of appointment order. When MCI has prescribed the

¶50

WP No.30238/2012

¶51

¶52

regulations to the post of Medical Superintendent, such appointment has to be made in consonance of the qualification prescribed therein. What appears from the records is that, the Government has proceeded to issue notification of appointment, in pursuance of recommendation from the Hon'ble Minister.

¶53

Hence, such appointment cannot be termed as an appointment in accordance with the Regulation. In these circumstances, I find that the Government is required to redo the exercise by considering the qualification of the candidate and should take decision strictly in consonance with the Medical Council of India Regulation.

¶54

Accordingly, petition is partly allowed. Impugned notification at Annexure-Q issued by respondent No.2 dated 21.8.2012 is quashed. The 3^rd respondent shall consider the requisite qualification required for the purpose of appointing the medical superintendent for the 2^nd respondent – Institution and shall consider such applications and if the person is found suitably qualified, the 3^rd respondent may resolve accordingly to appoint subject to approval by the

¶55

WP No.30238/2012

¶56

¶57

Government. In the meanwhile, the arrangement, as on today shall continue. Further the 3^rd respondent shall complete the process of selection of Medical Superintendent as early as possible not later than one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspanjali M C Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri Manjunath Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

Shilpa B P Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rudramuni Vs State of Karnataka

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajendra Kumar