Dismissed

Dr Aravind M Shetty S/O Late Mahaling Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/105176/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a medical officer challenging the termination of his contractual services. He claimed violation of legitimate expectation and contract rights. The Court held that a specific contractual clause allowing termination without reason bars such claims and fundamental rights do not attach to such appointments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands dismissed.

Dr Aravind M Shetty S/O Late Mahaling Shetty Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12584 WP No. 105176 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.105176 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DR. ARAVIND M. SHETTY S/O. LATE MAHALING SHETTY, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O: ASHIRWAD FORT GATE, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE– 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, NEAR K C PARK, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY AND WELFARE OFFICER.

¶16

DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, NEAR K C PARK, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶17

DISTRICT RCH OFFICER, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, NEAR K C PARK, HALIYAL ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12584 WP No. 105176 of 2024

¶20

TALUKA HEALTH OFFICER, HUBBALLI TALUK, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD – 580 020.

¶21

CITY PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD – 580 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE HEALTH AND OFFICER.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.NHM/ HR/ 2024-25, DATED 17.08.2024, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Challenging order dated 17.08.2024 issued by respondents no.2 to 4 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, after retiring from services on attaining age of superannuation as Medical Officer in Agricultural University, Dharwad, petitioner was appointed as full time Medical Officer on contract basis under National Heath Mission sponsored

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12584 WP No. 105176 of 2024

¶30

by Central Government, at City Primary Health Centre, Navanagar, Hubballi, on consolidated pay of Rs.35,000/- per month. As per contract dated 02.05.2017, duration of appointment was one year. It was submitted, after satisfactory completion of said period, contract was renewed from time to time. Even, on 01.04.2024, respondents renewed contract for further period of one year i.e., upto 31.03.2025. But, during subsistence of period of contract, respondents no.2 to 4 issued impugned order at Annexure-A terminating services. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition was filed.

¶31

It was submitted, petitioner was singled out among innumerable others would amount to discrimination, petitioner was questioning basis for same. It is further submitted, last renewal of contract was on 01.04.2024 and recurring renewal from year 2017, had given rise to legitimate expectation that he would be continued for entire duration of contract. Therefore, petitioner was questioning basis for abrupt termination.

¶32

On other hand, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 6 on advance notice sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, appointment of petitioner was retirement from

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12584 WP No. 105176 of 2024

¶35

regular service as Medical Officer at Agricultural University. Post retirement, his appointment was purely contractual and subject to conditions, contained in Annexure-C. Same would prohibit claim for regularization, pension, gratuity and other allowances. Conditions also specifically provide that services could be terminated at any point of time without assigning any reasons. It was submitted, since order impugned was not, in any manner, stigmatic, there was no right affected to question same. On said ground, sought for dismissal of petition.

¶36

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶37

From above, it is seen that petitioner is challenging impugned order at Annexure-A on ground of violation of legitimate expectation and right under contract. Perusal of contract agreement reveals that as per Clause 8, right is reserved unto respondents to terminate services at any point of time without assigning reasons. Impugned order also refers to circular issued by Government and consequential directions issued in official hierarchy. Issuance of Circular would amount to change in policy. Against change in policy, doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot be pressed into services. In any

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12584 WP No. 105176 of 2024

¶40

case, appointment being contractual and contract providing for

¶41

determination, no fundamental right can be stated to have been breached calling for interference under Article 226 of

¶42

Constitution of India.

¶43

In view of above, I do not find any merit in petition.

¶44

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶45

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶46

AV CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Dr Aravind M Shetty S/O Late Mahaling Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Aravind M Shetty S/O Late Mahaling Shetty 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

Smt. Rajshree Ramchandra Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula N W/O Dr. S P Jagadish Vs Managing Director

Sri Philip Xavier Pinto Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj Vs Sri H.M. Shivandaswamy

Pratik S/O Shripad Kulkarni,Rep. by Her Mother Smt. Akanksha W/O Shripad Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh H S/O Late Huchappa Vs the Managing Director