Dismissed

Dr Monika Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2024WP/10814/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a notification cancelling their nomination as Senate members of RGUHS, claiming arbitrary violation of secure tenure and Article 14. The Court, relying on similar precedents, dismissed the petition but reserved liberty to seek review pending Supreme Court intervention on a related matter.

What did the court decide?

Citation of W.P. No. 10837/2023 and W.A. No. 635/2024. Liberty to file review application pending Supreme Court decision.

Dr Monika Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10814 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR MONIKA KRISHNAPPA D/O DR. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O MB-803, 8^TH FLOOR B WING, MAPLE BLOCK GOLDEN GRAND APARTMENT, YESHAVANTPUR, BENGALURU - 560022.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

DR. BHAGWAN SAHAY MANGAL S/O RAMESHWAR PRASAD MANGAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, R/O NO. 07, 1^ST MAIN, ASHWATH NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560094.

¶10

DR. SACHIN PATTANSHETTI, S/O ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O OM SHIV BUILDING SANTHAJI GALLI, POTDAR PLOT B.K.KANGARALI, BELAGAVI - 590010.

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶12

DR. BASAVARAJ M. MULKIPATIL S/O MALLIKARJUNGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, LAKSHMI NAGAR, BADAMI, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587201.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURUDEV I GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 1.

¶17

THE UNDER SECRETARY - 2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶18

THE REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, JAYANAGAR, 4^TH T BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 041.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶21

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO

¶22

QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED. 25.05.2023

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶25

BEARING NO.MED 258 MMC 2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G ONLY PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification bearing No.MED 258 MMC 2023 dated 25.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 in terms of which the respondent No.2 appointed certain others as members of the Senate of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (‘RGUHS’ for short).

¶30

The petitioners contend that they were nominated as members of the Senate of RGUHS vide notification dated 13.12.2022 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 21(1) (x) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (‘RGUHS Act, 1994’ for short). The term of the office of

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶32

the petitioners was specified as three years with immediate effect or until further orders of the State Government whichever was earlier. The petitioners contend that the State Government realizing the mistake and the legislative intent of Section 31 of the RGUHS Act, 1994 modified the notification dated 13.12.2022 and the words “or until further orders of the Government whichever is earlier” were dropped, in terms of the notification dated 06.02.2023. This was followed by a revised notification dated 10.02.2023 specifying that the term of the office of the members shall be for a period of three years with effect from 13.12.2022. The petitioners contend that they have been serving as the members of the Senate then on. However, after the new Cabinet was formed, a direction is issued to cancel all nominations with effect from 22.05.2023 consequent to which a further direction was issued by the Chief Secretary. In furtherance of the above, the Under Secretary to the respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 25.05.2023 cancelling the nomination of the petitioners.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily

¶37

contend that the petitioners had a secured tenure of three years from the date of their appointment and therefore, the respondents cannot now disturb their term by cancelling their nomination. It is also contended that the cancellation of their nomination was without notice and without hearing them and therefore, the impugned notification is arbitrary and violates the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that in precisely similar circumstances, those members of the Syndicate of the RGUHS whose nominations were cancelled had approached this Court in W.P. No.10837/2023 connected with W.P. No.10994/2023. She submits that a coordinate Bench of

¶39

this Court in terms of the order dated 05.04.2024, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the nominees do not have a indefeasible right to continue and that they could do so at the pleasure of the Government which it could withdraw at its discretion. Learned counsel contended that this judgment was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶41

No.635/2024 and connected appeals which too were dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 07.08.2024. She therefore submits that the facts in the present case and the facts in the writ petitions decided by this Court are similar and therefore this petition is also bound to follow suit.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners however contended that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is now challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No.37265/2024.

¶43

Since it is not in dispute that the points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are covered on all fours by the order dated 05.04.2024 of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.10837/2023 and connected case which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.635/2024 and connected cases in terms of the judgment dated 07.08.2024, this petition also deserves to be disposed off on the same lines as in W.P No.10837/2023 and connected case subject, however, to granting liberty to the petitioners to seek review of this order in the event of the Hon'ble Supreme Court entertaining the SLP Diary No.37265/2024.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:33720 WP No. 10814 of 2023

¶46

Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. However,

¶47

liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek review of this order in the event the Hon’ble Supreme Court entertaining SLP Diary No.37265/2024.

¶48

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2