Disposed

Dr. Kasturi Hunashikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2012WP/60588/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the appointment and continuation of Dr Rajashekar R K as Professor, claiming superior seniority and eligibility. The court directed the institution to examine inter se seniority, eligibility, and past experience before taking appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for promotion if more senior; appropriate action to be taken by respondents expeditiously.

Dr. Kasturi Hunashikatti Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

¶6

Writ Petition 60588 / 2012 (S Res )

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr Smt Kasturi Hunashikatti, 47 yrs Professor of Physiology Dept. of Physiology, Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences (District Hospital) Belgaum Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Satish S Raichur, Adv.)

¶10

And :

¶11

1 State of Karnataka – by its Secretary Health & Family Welfare Department (Medical Education), Vikas Soudha Bangalore 1

¶12

2 Director Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences (District Hospital), Belgaum

¶13

3 Dr Rajashekar R K, 56 yrs HOD & Professor of Physiology

¶14

¶15

Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences (District Hospital), Belgaum

¶16

Respondents

¶17

(By Smt Megha C Kolekar, GP for R1; Smt Veena Hegde, Adv. for R3)

¶18

The Petition is filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution praying to direct respondents to consider the representation dated 16.10.2011 – annexure G.

¶19

The Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner has sought for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to consider her representation dated 16.10.2011 – annexure G and also to approve the designation of the petitioner as Professor of Physiology and seniority as per the appointment order.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is, in terms of the resolution dated 1.1.2008 by the Governing Council of the 2^nd respondent, she was appointed as Associate professor in the 2^nd respondent institution in the Department of Physiology on the scale of AICTE and also other admissible allowances and non-

¶23

¶24

practising allowance for pre and para-clinical medical facility, temporarily on probation for a period of two years. She reported for duty on 1.4.2008, after getting officially relieved from JNM Medical College, Belgaum. As per the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, at the time of inspection, after verification petitioner was found eligible for the post of Professor and was also promoted to the post of Professor as per Official Memorandum dated 22.2.2010. Accordingly, she reported for duty on 22.2.2010. In the meantime, the 3^rd respondent had been appointed as Professor and Head of Surgery in the 2^nd respondent institution with effect from 13.4.2007.

¶25

It is the petitioner’s contention, the 3^rd respondent is ineligible for the post and his continuation in the said post is illegal rather the petitioner should have been preferred. In this regard, though she has given a representation, so far the 2^nd respondent institution has not considered the same. Accordingly, she is before this Court.

¶26

¶27

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

¶28

According to the petitioner’s counsel, petitioner has more experience than the 3^rd respondent. Even then, the 3^rd respondent has been preferred.

¶29

According to the 3^rd respondent, his appointment as Professor is based on seniority and experience that he had at the time of his promotion and he is more experienced and has been duly appointed as Professor and there is no illegality.

¶30

Now a dispute is raised by the petitioner that she is more

¶31

senior to the 3^rd respondent and her case should have been considered.

¶32

According to the government pleader, there is no vacancy of the post of Professor as such, petitioner’s case may not be considered.

¶33

¶34

In view of the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel that petitioner is more senior and eligible than the 3^rd respondent, the inter se seniority if any, has to be looked into apart from eligibility and past experience and appropriate action be taken expeditiously, according to law. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/- Judge

¶37

Dr. Kasturi Hunashikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kasturi Hunashikatti v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep S/O Laxman Limaye Vs Asha Aravind Ranade

Shanamukappa S/O. Shivabasappa Jiglur Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shanamukappa S/O. Shivabasappa Jiglur Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Subaschandra Sanagannavar Vs the State Represented by Secretary

Chandusab S/O Khajesab Pinjar Vs the State Represented by

Chandrappa S/O. Putappa Haravi Vs Govt. of Karnataka