Dismissed

Dr Veena G Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/51998/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed Writ Petition challenging Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order rejecting petitioners' applications for Professor and Associate Professor posts due to lack of prescribed qualifications. Court held State Government must issue specific Notification under general recruitment rules to recognize allied subjects as equivalent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands disposed of dismissing the petition with no interference regarding the order of Tribunal or endorsements.

Dr Veena G Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 51998 OF 2019 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. VEENA G RAO D/O A R UDUPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NO.1063/106, F-3 1^ST MAIN, 8^TH CROSS VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570 010.

¶9

DR. ISHWARAYYA S MATHAPATI S/O SHEKHARAYYA MATHAPATI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O C/O J R KALAL 2^ND CROSS, ASHWINI NAGAR HAVERI-581183.

¶10

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DR. VIJAYAMAHANTESH S CHOUDHARI S/O SANGAPPA CHOUDHARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O ATHANI BUILDING TEGGI LAYOUT, VIDYAGIRI BAGALKOT-587102.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. P M NAYAK, ADV.)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (AYUSH) VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶17

THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH DHANVANTRI ROAD ANANDARAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009.

¶18

THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOGA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R3)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-3 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS. 2159-2164/2018 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-D TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

¶23

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court questioning the

¶27

order dated 04.02.2019 in Application Nos.2159 to 2164/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶29

Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting petitioners’ application challenging the endorsements, by which their application for the post of Professor and Associate Professor is rejected stating they would not possess prescribed qualification.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.M.Nayak for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash for respondent No.3. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶31

Learned counsel Sri.P.M.Nayak for petitioners would submit that respondent No.3 in terms of Annexure-A1, Notification dated 17.12.2016 invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up various posts including that of Professors and Associate Professors in Ayush Department. Learned counsel would submit that the prescribed qualification for the post of Professor in Panchakarma relating to first petitioner reads as follows:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶34

Sl. No	Applicant name	Qualification possessed by applicant	Post applied	Reservation claimed	Qualification mentioned in the Notification.
1.	Dr.Veena G. Rao	M.D. (Ayurveda) Kayachikitsa	Professor in Panchakarma	GM	1) Must possess a Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda & Post Graduate Degree in Panchakarma awarded by an University established by Law in India and included in the II Schedule to Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970).
					2) Must have put in not less than five years of teaching experience in Panchakarma in an Institution recognized by the Govt.

¶35

Insofar as petitioner No.2, who applied for the

¶36

Professor in Roga Nidhana and the qualification prescribed

¶37

for the said post reads as follows:

¶38

Sl. No	Applicant name	Qualification possessed by applicant	Post applied	Reservation claimed	Qualification mentioned in the Notification.
1.	Dr.Iswarayy a S. Mathapathi	M.D. (Ayurveda) Kayachikitsa	Professor in Roga Nidhana	3B	1) Must possess a Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda & Post Graduate Degree in Roganidana evem vikritivignana awarded by an University established by Law in India & included in the II Schedule to Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970). 2) Must have put in not less than ten years of teaching experience in Roganidana evem Vikritivignana in an Institution recognized by the Govt.

¶39

Insofar as the third petitioner, who applied for

¶40

the Associate Professor in Kriya Shareera and the qualification prescribed for the said post reads as follows:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶43

Sl. No	Applicant name	Qualification possessed by applicant	Post applied	Reservation claimed	Qualification mentioned in the Notification.
1.	Dr.Vijayama hantesh S. Choudhari	M.D. (Ayurveda) Ayurveda Sindanta	Associate Professor in Kriya Shareera	3A	1) Must possess a Bachelor Degree in Ayurveda & Post Graduate Degree in Kriya Shareera awarded by an University established by Law in India and included in the II Schedule to Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 (Central Act 48 of 1970).
					2) Must have put in not less than ten years of teaching experience in Kriya Shareera in an Institution recognized by the Govt.

¶44

The first petitioner possessed the qualification of BAMS and post graduation in Ayurveda Vachaspathi Kayachikitsa, second petitioner possessed the qualification of BAMS and post graduation in Ayurveda Vachaspathi, MD Ayurveda-Kayachikitsa and the third petitioner possessed the qualification of BAMS and post graduation in Ayurveda Vachaspathi and Ayurveda Sindanta. The third respondent-KPSC issued endorsement dated 13.03.2018, 12.03.2018 and 12.03.2018 to the petitioners respectively informing the petitioners that they would not possess the prescribed qualification under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Challenging the said endorsements, petitioners were before the Tribunal in Application Nos.2159-

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶46

2164/2018 contending that petitioners possessed post graduation in allied subjects in terms of Notifications dated 25.04.2012 and 07.11.2016 at Annexures-A55 and A56 issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (for short, ‘CCIM’). The Tribunal under impugned order, rejected the applications of the petitioners observing that the relevant C & R Rules are not amended for providing such relaxation as provided under the Notification issued by CCIM.

¶47

Learned counsel Sri.P.M.Nayak for petitioners would contend that the Notification issued by CCIM is binding on the State Government and in terms of the Notification issued by CCIM, the State Government ought to have amended the C & R Rules relating to the Department of Ayush to include equivalent qualification of post graduation in allied subjects. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the State and the Selection Authority ought to have recognized the allied post graduation possessed by the petitioners and ought to have considered their candidature for the post of Professors and Associate

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶49

Professors, to which the petitioners had applied. Further, learned counsel would also submit that for want of candidates, all the posts are not filled up and as such he prays for consideration of cases of the petitioners who possessed post graduation in allied subjects for appointment as Professor and Associate Professors. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners lack prescribed qualification and therefore he justifies the endorsement issued by respondent No.3. Learned counsel Sri.K.M.Prakash as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran would submit that the qualifications possessed by petitioners i.e., post graduation in allied subjects is not declared as equivalent qualification by the State Government as required under Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. (for short, ‘General Recruitment Rules’). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶52

would contend that unless Notification is issued declaring the qualification as equivalent qualification, such persons who possess equivalent qualification would not get right for consideration of their cases for selection. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶54

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is as to,

¶55

“Whether the petitioners have made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the endorsements issued by the third respondent - KPSC?”

¶56

Answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:

¶57

The third respondent issued Notification dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure-A1) inviting applications to fill up various posts including the post of Professors and Associate Professors in the Department of Ayush. The prescribed qualification for those posts and the qualification possessed by the petitioners are extracted

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶59

above. Admittedly, petitioners would not possess the qualification prescribed under the Notification dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure-A1). It is the contention of the petitioners that CCIM has recognized the post graduation in allied subjects as equivalent qualification and the State

¶60

ought to have taken note of the said Notification. Admittedly, the State Government has not included the allied post graduation qualification possessed by the petitioners as equivalent qualification by issuing a Notification under Rule 2(h) of General Recruitment Rules. Unless the State Government takes a policy decision to recognize the post graduation in allied subjects as equivalent subject to the qualification prescribed in the Notification at Annexure-A1, the petitioners would not get any right to seek consideration of their cases for selection to the post of Professors and Associate Professors. Further, the Recruitment Rules also would not recognize the post graduation in allied subject as equivalent qualification. In the absence of recognition of qualification of post graduation in allied subjects as equivalent

¶61

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34698-DB WP No. 51998 of 2019

¶62

qualification by issuing Notification under Rule 2(h) of General Recruitment Rules, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the endorsements issued by the third respondent – KPSC. The Tribunal has rightly observed while dismissing the applications that, it is up to the petitioners to approach the first respondent for necessary amendment to the C & R Rules. If such representation is made by the petitioners, we are sure the State Government would consider the same in the light of the Notification issued by the CCIM dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure-A56).

¶63

With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶64

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶65

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶66

¶67

CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Dr Veena G Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Veena G Rao v. 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 Parameshwara Vs N S Khurudekar

G P Ravi S/O Late Panchaksharappa Vs G Basavarajappa S/O N G Shekarappa

Mr. Abdul Khader Imran, Vs Mrs. Aysha Munihaz

State of Karnataka Vs Sri K T Kannan

Mahadeva R Vs the Additional Director

Mr. Pratheep. a. R. Vs State of Karnataka