Disposed¶56

Dr Chaitanya P R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2025WP/19921/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seniority dispute between directly recruited Assistant Professors (Drs. Chaitanya P.R., Sridhara S, B. Chandrashekhara, Hema Mohan and Parameshwar S) and deputationist absorbees at Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences; challenge to G.O. No.AaKuKa 69 RGU 2013 dated 09.04.2013 placing direct recruits below absorbees; petition disposed of on the basis of the Director's affidavit confirming direct recruits rank above absorbees, with a continuing direction to Respondent No.2 to maintain that seniority for all purposes; High Court of Karnataka, R. Nataraj J., 17.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in the light of the affidavit filed by the Director of Respondent No.2; Respondent No.2 directed to ensure that, for all purposes, the seniority of the petitioners is placed above the absorbees. ¶56

Dr Chaitanya P R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 19921 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. CHAITANYA P.R. S/O SRI P. RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.204, "SANGAMA" SIMS DOCTORS' QUARTERS, MC GANN HOSPITAL CAMPUS, SHIMOGA-577201

¶8

DR. SRIDHARA S S/O LATE SRI. P.V. SURYANARAYAN RAO AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT QUARTERS NO.5 MC GANN TEACHING HOSPITAL KUVEMPU ROAD SHIMOGA-577201

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

DR. B. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SRI. B. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SRIDEVI CHILD CARE TILAK NAGAR SHIMOGA-577201

¶11

DR. HEMA MOHAN W/O DR. MOHAN S.V.S. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT "SAPTHAGIRI" A.N.K. ROAD, I CROSS ACHUTHA RAO LAYOUT, SHIMOGA-577201

¶12

DR. PARAMESHWAR S S/O SRI SHIVAPPA

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶14

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 'MYNA' NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, SHESHADRIPURAM SHIMOGA-577201

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S., ADV FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001

¶19

SHIMOGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (AUTONOMOUS MEDICAL INSTITUTION) DISTRICT GOVERNMENT MC. GANN HOSPITAL SHIMOGA-577201 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶22

SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 09.04.2013 BEARING NO.AaKuKa 69 RGU 2013, BANGALORE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-T).

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.DPÀÄPÀ

¶29

69 DgïfAiÀÄÄ 2013, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, dated 09.04.2013 issued by the

¶30

respondent No.1 by which, the petitioners were placed below the absorbees after their absorption in the respondent No.2.

¶31

The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that they were all directly recruited as Assistant Professors in the respondent No.2. They contend that several doctors, who were working in District hospitals coming under the administrative control of the Department of Health and Family Welfare were sent on deputation to the respondent No.2. They also contend that the posts that were held by the Doctors, who were deputed in the Department of Health and Family Welfare were not equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor under the Department of Health and Family Welfare of State of Karnataka. Nonetheless, the respondent No.1 decided to absorb the deputees from the Department of Health and Family Welfare and in terms of the impugned order, placed

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶33

the absorbees above the petitioners. The petitioners are

¶34

therefore, before this Court challenging the said order.

¶35

When this petition was taken up for final hearing,

¶36

an affidavit is filed by the Director of the respondent No.2, which reads as follows:-

¶37

"AFFIDAVIT

¶38

I, Virupakshappa, Director, Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences, Shimoga do hereby state as follows:

¶39

I state that I am the Director of the Respondent No.2 institution in the above case and I am conversant with facts of the case and hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

¶40

I state that the Petitioners have sought to quash the Government Order Dated 09.04.2013 bearing No AaKuka 69RGU 2013, Bangalore issued by the Respondent No 1 at Annexure T.

¶41

I state that as per the seniority list 2013 produced at Annexure-M, will not affect the seniority of the Petitioners.

¶42

I state that the Petitioner No.1 Dr Chaitanya P R, working in the Orthopedic Department is the senior most in the Department and presently working as Professor and HOD in the Department and is senior in the Seniority list.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶44

I state that the Petitioner No.2, Dr Sridhara S working in the ENT department is the Senior as Assistant professor and presently working as Associate professor in the ENT Department.

¶45

I state that the Petitioner No.3, Dr B Chandrashekar working in the Pediatric Department is the Senior and presently working as Associate professor in the Department of Pediatric.

¶46

I state that the Petitioner No.4, Dr Hema Mohan working in the OBG Department is the senior and presently working as Associate professor in the Department of OBG.

¶47

I state that the Petitioner No.5, Dr Parameshwar S working in the Cardiology Department is the senior and presently working as Associate Professor.

¶48

I state that all the Petitioners are kept above the Doctors who have been absorbed into the Institution and the Doctors who have been absorbed into the Institute from the Health and Family Welfare are all retired from the Service.

¶49

I state that in the Department of OBG only one Doctor by name Swathi Bhat, absorbed from the Heath and Family Welfare and she is below the Petitioner No.4.

¶50

I state that the Petitioners who are Directly Recruited are placed senior in the Seniority list as

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11044 WP No. 19921 of 2013

¶52

per there recruitment and there seniority will not be affected.

¶53

I state that I have enclosed the copy of the Seniority published as on 2024 and as per the C and R rules of the Institute, the candidates who are directly recruited are placed as Senior most in the Seniority list And as per the G.O., the direct recruiters are placed above the absorbed Doctors. And the relevant copies are enclosed for kind perusal."

¶54

Since it is specifically stated that the petitioners,

¶55

who were directly recruited are placed above absorbees in the seniority list and that the seniority of the petitioners will not be affected by the absorption, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off.

¶56

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off in the light of the affidavit filed by the Director of the respondent No.2. Consequently, respondent No.2 shall ensure that for all purposes, the seniority of the petitioners shall be placed above the absorbees.

¶57

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶58

PMR

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Dr Chaitanya P R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Chaitanya P R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A D Krishnegowda Vs Smt Kenchamma

Smt G Prathima Vs the State of Karnataka

S K Chowdappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish M K Vs State of Karnataka

B O Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashok B Hugar Vs the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited