Allowed

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/103492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by an Assistant Professor seeking promotion to Professor. The Court quashed the Committee's decision excluding him and directed appointment based on a prior Committee decision favoring promotion despite pending departmental charges which were subsequently exonerated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; decision dated 20.11.2023 and endorsement dated 20.11.2023 quashed; Respondents directed to appoint petitioner as Professor within three months with interest on arrears.

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14737 WP No. 103492 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103492 OF 2023 (S-PRO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. VINAYAKA PRASANNA K. SON OF K. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, FORENSIC MEDICINE DEPARTMENT, VIMS, BALLARI, R/AT NO.18, SHIVAGIRI NAGAR, SIRGUPPA ROAD, HAWAMBHAVI, BALLARI-583103.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed
MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate:
2023.12.20
16:18:27 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY PRINCIPAL BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (MEDICAL EDUCATION), M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, VIJAYANAGARA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583104.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SRI. J. M. ANILKUMAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 16.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J WRITTEN BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.06.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND REPRESENTATION DATED 03.10.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14737 WP No. 103492 of 2023

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-institution.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction

¶25

submits that he does not press the prayer at Annexure-J. Accordingly, the said prayer is not considered.

¶26

The second prayer is to issue writ of mandamus

¶27

directing respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 03.06.2022 marked at Annexure-G and representation dated 03.10.2022 vide Annexure-L. The aforementioned representations are submitted by the petitioner to consider the petitioner’s claim for promotion by opening sealed cover. The decision relating to the petitioner’s promotion is kept in a sealed cover in view of the pendency of a departmental enquiry. The enquiry had commenced when the petitioner was working as Assistant

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14737 WP No. 103492 of 2023

¶29

Professor under respondent No.2. The enquiry was concluded in the year 2018. Pursuant to interim direction issued by this court, the decision of the committee relating to the petitioner’s promotion was opened and placed before the departmental promotion committee on 18.11.2023. After opening the sealed cover decision taken earlier, the committee has further reviewed the decision taken on 24.06.2019. In terms of the earlier decision, the committee had taken a decision to promote the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Associate Professor and also Professor. In other words, the committee is of the view that petitioner is eligible to be promoted as Professor.

¶30

In the said decision taken on 18.11.2023, the departmental promotion committee has taken a view that the petitioner is not eligible for promotion and earlier order to promote the petitioner is withdrawn. Though the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that petitioner is not eligible for promotion, it is to be noticed

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14737 WP No. 103492 of 2023

¶32

that the Committee has taken the decision on 24.06.2019 itself to promote the petitioner. However, in the endorsement dated 20.11.2023 it is observed that the petitioner is not eligible for double promotion. It is also relevant to note that the decision is taken to promote the petitioner and the decision is kept in a sealed cover as the departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. There is no dispute that petitioner is exonerated of the charges in the departmental enquiry. On 24.06.2019 the Committee has taken a decision that the petitioner is eligible for promotion. Thus the decision dated 20.11.2023 is contrary to the earlier decision where it is held that the petitioner is eligible for promotion. Only on account of pendency of departmental enquiry, the order of promotion was not given effect to.

¶33

This being the position and also considering the

¶34

fact that petitioner did possess all the qualifications to be appointed to the post of Professor, the writ petition has to be allowed.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14737 WP No. 103492 of 2023

¶36

Though, the decision taken on 18.11.2023 to

¶37

consider the petitioner’s promotion in the upcoming meeting of the Committee, is not questioned, this court is of the view that decision which is already taken to promote the petitioner on 24.06.2019 has to be given effect to. Accordingly, decision taken on 18.11.2023 and endorsement dated 20.11.2023 are quashed.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed appoint the petitioner to the post of Professor in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits.

¶39

This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this order till payment, on arrears of service benefits payable to the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

MBS/ct-an

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K 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

Sri.Shankrappa Virupaxappa Dandin Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.Girish Nayak S/O Hanumanayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Nazukma W/O Khasimsab Multani Vs the Tahashildar

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vanaja D W/O Dr. Vinayka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sabanna Galeppa Pujeri Vs State of Karnataka