Dismissed

Dr Nisarga v. Vs the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/18285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five doctors appointed temporarily as Senior Residents and Junior Residents challenged their termination by the Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences. Court held appointments to unsanctioned posts under an illegal contract arrangement carried no right to continue; petition dismissed, with salary for work extracted directed to be paid.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondent No.2 directed to pay petitioners' salary for work extracted within three months if not already paid.

Dr Nisarga v Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18285 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. NISARGA V, D/O VENKATESHA R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, GENERAL HOSPITAL, SOMWARPET TOWN, RANGER BLOCK, HOSPITAL QUETRESS, SOMWARPET, KODAGU, KARNATAKA - 571 236.

¶8

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

DR. MOHAMMED YASEEN SHARIEF, S/O MOHAMMED KARNAL SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, C, 9/1, SHARIEFF COLONY, H N PURA ROAD, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

¶10

DR. SAMAR IBRAHIM, D/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, NO. 195/B, 7TH CROSS, POLICE QUARTERS, CHIKKANALU, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶12

DR. MEHA K T, D/O TALIB K T, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO. 2370, WARD NO.19, AGRAHARA ROAD, BAHARPET, OPP. GULPS SCHOOL, NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201.

¶13

DR. SHANKAR LINGE GOWDA, S/O ARKALGUD RAMU RAVI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO. 760, AKEB ROAD, WARD NO.07, PETE, ARKALGUD, HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 102.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

DIRECTOR AND DEAN, HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, HASSAN, CHAMARAJENDRA HOSPITAL CAMPUS, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R2)

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE R2 DATED 29/04/2024 BEARING NO. HIMS/C(2)/17/2023-24 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE PETITIONERS. ii) DIRECT THE R2 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONERS ON A PERMANENT BASIS. iii) DIRECT THE R3 TO RELEASE SALARY OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FROM THE DATE OF APPOINTMENT HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -B DATED 29/02/2024 NO. HIMS(2)/19/2023-24 B1, B2 AND B3 DATED 29/02/2024 NO. HIMS/(1)/115/2013-14 B4 DATED 14/03/2024 NO. HIMS/C(2)/21/2023-24 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners were appointed on temporary basis as Senior Residents and Junior Residents at respondent No.2 for a period of one year or until further orders, whichever was earlier. These appointment orders were issued on 29.02.2024 and 14.03.2024 and accordingly, the petitioners reported to duty as Senior residents and Junior residents. Respondent No.2 thereafter, issued the impugned order terminating the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶29

services of the petitioners, which effect from 29.04.2024. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court, challenging the aforesaid order of termination of their services.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed for a period of one year or until further orders and before they completed their tenure, they were terminated unceremoniously and without assigning any reason. He submitted that the petitioners are more eligible and competent to hold the posts of Senior residents and Junior residents respectively. He also contends that the appointment of the petitioners was understood to be on permanent basis, but respondent No.2, without issuing any notice, terminated the services of the petitioners without any reasons. In support of the contention of the petitioners, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of The Manager Government Branch Press and Another Vs. D. B. Belliappa, [(1979) 1 SCC 477].

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the posts of Senior residents and Junior residents are filled up by post graduate and under graduate students (for short 'PG and UG Students') who had completed

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶33

their course and had given a bond that they would serve the State Government. She submits that the petitioners were taken on contract basis as a stop-gap arrangement, which was not only illegal but was also without following the due process of law. Therefore, she contended that respondent No.2 initiated disciplinary action against the Director, who had appointed the petitioners as Senior residents and Junior residents and an order of punishment was imposed upon him. She contends that the petitioners have no right to continue in the post as it was not a sanctioned post but was meant to be filled up by PG and UG students. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Dulu Deka Vs. State of Assam and Ors (Civil Appeal No.4455/2022 decided on 22.08.2023). She contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a case of 509 teachers who were illegally appointed against non-existent posts, which were thereafter cancelled by the Director of Elementary Education and held that they were not entitled to continue in service. She contended that in the present case too, the appointment of the petitioners as Senior residents and Junior residents is not in accordance with law but at the whim and fancy of the Director of

¶34

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶35

respondent No.2, which is now set right by terminating the services of the petitioners.

¶36

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶37

The petitioner No.1 was appointed initially for a period of one year or until further orders, while petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were appointed initially for a period of six months or until further orders. It was stated in the orders of appointment itself that the appointment of the petitioners was temporary in nature and could be terminated at any time without issuing any notice. The petitioners having accepted the orders of appointment, cannot now claim that they were entitled to be continued until the tenure ended. The respondent No.2 has contended that these posts were filled up not in accordance with law but at the discretion of the Director of respondent No.2 and that he was proceeded against departmentally. Therefore, no exception can be made to the order passed by respondent No.2, terminating the services of the petitioners. If the posts of Senior residents and Junior residents were not sanctioned but had to be filled up by PG and UG students who

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:35466 WP No. 18285 of 2024

¶39

had submitted a bond to the State Government, the impugned order cannot held to be erroneous or illegal. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable on facts, in as much as in the said judgment, the petitioner was terminated on the basis of an allegation, without conducting any enquiry. In the present case, the petitioners who were employed under an illegal contract employment, were terminated. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that they should be continued in service cannot be accepted.

¶40

In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks

¶41

merit and is dismissed.

¶42

It is needless to mention that respondent No.2 shall pay the salary payable to the petitioners for the work extracted from them, if not already paid. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified .copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Dr Nisarga v. Vs the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Nisarga v. Vs the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Panchayath Development Officer

Sri Suhel Tanveer H a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B M Chandrashekaraiah Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Sri Mallikarjun Kasabegoudar Vs the Managing Director

Sri Madev Gouda Vs Union of India

Mr B Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka