Dismissed¶54

Smt. Mamatha G C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025WA/1875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Deputation - cancellation of deputation - no right to continue in borrowing department/institution - deputationist cannot seek parity with absorbed lecturers - Clinical Instructor/nursing lecturer - Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute - Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 - repatriation at employer's/Government's prerogative (earlier DB view in W.P.No.8311/2025) - writ appeal under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act - appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is settled law that a deputationist cannot claim a right to continue in the borrowing department after her deputation has been cancelled; learned counsel for the appellant was unable to controvert this position, and finding no merit in the appeal the Division Bench dismissed it. ¶52

Smt. Mamatha G C Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1875 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. MAMATHA G C AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O VENKATAPPA, M.SC.(NURSING) LECTURER, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND, RESEARCH INSTITUTE COLLEGE OF NURSING, BANGALORE. R/O NO.70/1, 'A' TYPE, K.P.W.D. QUARTERS, JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560075

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. K SREEDHAR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 6th FLOOR, 4th GATE, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE 560023

¶22

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION OLD BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE K.R ROAD, FORT, BANGALORE 560002

¶23

THE BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE UNDER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN CUM DIRECTOR, K.R. ROAD, FORT, BANGALORE-560002.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4. SMT. BHAVAN N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2024 IN WP No-49151/2024 (S-RES) AND GRANT THE PRAYER MADE IN THE SAID WP IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49151/2014.

¶34

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner initially joined as nurse in 1998 in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State Government. It appears that she completed her B.Sc.(Nursing) in the year 2007 and M.Sc.(Nursing) in the year 2010 during her employment. In the year 2010, the petitioner was deputed as Clinical Instructor in respondent No.5-College. According to the petitioner, she was given the work of lecturer in the nursing college.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The Health and Family Welfare Department vide Government Order dated 12.08.2014 cancelled her

¶39

deputation in respondent No.5 - College and asked her to report back in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. In compliance of the order dated 12.08.2014, the petitioner was relieved from the college on the very next day i.e., on 13.08.2014. Against the said two orders i.e, the Government Order canceling her deputation in the college and the college relieving her vide order dated 13.08.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.No.49151/2014.

¶40

The learned Single Judge having considered the

¶41

submissions and the Rules i.e, the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 has been of the view that the petitioner does not have a right to continue in the college after her deputation in the college has been cancelled vide order dated 12.08.2014 and she being relieved from the college on 13.08.2014. The petitioner cannot seek parity with the lecturers who were absorbed in the college.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent No.5 -

¶45

College has submitted that initially an interim order was passed by the writ Court and on the strength of the interim order, she continued in the college till the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2024 came to be passed. After the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2024 was passed, the petitioner was relieved from the college. The said relieving order was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No.4772/2024. The State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Application No.4772/2024 vide order dated 14.02.2025. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in her Application No.4772/2024 filed W.P.No.8311/2025 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2025.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:45219-DB WA No. 1875 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

The Division Bench has also taken the view that

¶50

a deputationist cannot cling onto the post/position in the

¶51

borrowing department, and it is prerogative of the employer more particularly the Government to decide which of the staff should be repatriated.

¶52

It is settled law that a deputationist cannot claim a right to continue in the borrowing department after her deputation has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to controvert this position.

¶53

We thus find no merit in this appeal and

¶54

therefore, the appeal is dismissed .

¶55

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶57

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt. Mamatha G C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamatha G C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of India Vs Smt. M K Pravanakshi

V. U. Shankar Vs Syndicate Bank

N N Mahadeva Vs the Divisional Controller

M/S Propcare Developers Private Limited Vs Mr Shane Miranda

The Additional District Registrar Vs Sri. Mahamad Hifzur Rahaman

Sri. Nagaraj. H. S. Vs the Commissioner