The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Dr Prabhulinga

DR. PRABHULINGA, S/O MALLAPPA GANAGER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER (AYURVEDA), GOVT. AYURVEDI DISPENSARY, ITAGI, RON TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT, R/AT MANJUNATH NAGAR, BEHIND AIVALLI PETROL PUMP, BADAMI, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.

¶18

DEPARTMNET OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES (AYUSH DEPARTMENT), VIKASA SOUDHA,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶23

BENGALURU-560001.

¶24

THE COMMISSIONERATE OF AYUSH, DEPARTMENT OF AYURVEDA, YOGA AND NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY, REP. BY IS COMMISSIONER, DHANWANTRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶25

DR. SHASHIKALA, W/O DR. T. V. ADIVESHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS AYUSH (AYURVEDA) SPECIALIST, OFFICE OF DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, GOVT. AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, BASAVAKALYAN, R/AT No.28, TIRUMALA KRUPA, PAVANAGANGA COLONY, SHAHABAD RING ROAD, RAJAPUR, KALABURGI-585105.

¶26

DR. RAJENDRA BENAKANAL P., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O PARAPPA BENAKANAL, SHIVAGANGA NILAYA, HOUSE No.11-4-331, OPPOSITE TO KALMATA SCHOOL NEAR RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE, MANVI, RAICHUR-584123.

¶27

DR. KARIYAPPA HOSALLI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSE No.7/21, MAIN ROAD, SAI NILAYA, MUTTUR POST, NEAR MUTTUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BYADGI, HAVERI-581109.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/09/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.1392/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A .

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶37

Heard Sri B.S. Sappannavar, learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶39

This writ petition is filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) challenging the order dated 22.09.2023 passed in Application No.1392/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶40

The brief facts of the case are that a notification dated 30.07.2020 was issued for recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts in the Department of Health and Family

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Welfare Services (AYUSH Department). Respondent No.1 applied pursuant to the said notification and was selected. The said selection list was challenged by respondent No.4 by filing Application No.21286/2021 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.11.2022, directed that weightage be extended to respondent No.4. Upon giving effect to the said order and granting weightage to respondent No.4, her name came to be included in the selection list, as a consequence of which the name of respondent No.1 was deleted from the selection list. Aggrieved by the said action, respondent No.1 preferred an application before the Tribunal.

¶44

3.1 The Tribunal, by the impugned order, noticing that the non-grant of weightage was a mistake on the part of the petitioner herein, directed the petitioner to consider and continue respondent No.1 in the post to which he had been appointed and further directed that respondent No.4 be considered against an existing vacant post by providing posting in the Department and by issuing an appointment order. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Sri B.S. Sappannavar, learned counsel appearing

¶49

for the petitioner-KPSC, submits that upon giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.4 stands placed above respondent No.1 in the selection list. It is contended that the Tribunal committed an error in directing appointment of respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the non-grant of weightage to respondent No.4 at the time of selection was on account of an inadvertent mistake. Consequently, it is urged that respondent No.1 is not entitled to appointment, the same having occurred due to a technical error.

¶50

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government

¶51

Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶52

Having considered the submissions of the learned

¶53

counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that respondent No.1 was initially selected to the post in question. The said selection came to be unsettled while giving effect to the directions issued by the Tribunal in Application No.21286/2021 at the instance of respondent No.4. The consequential removal

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

of respondent No.1 from the selection list was questioned before the Tribunal.

¶58

6.1 The Tribunal, in the impugned order, on noticing the admission of the petitioner that weightage was not correctly considered and that, on account of such mistake, respondent No.1 came to be excluded from selection, proceeded to pass

¶59

the directions impugned herein. The recruitment pertains to the year 2020, and respondent No.1 was issued an appointment order pursuant to the notification dated 30.07.2020. Respondent No.1 was sought to be removed from the selection list in the revised final list dated 16.03.2023.

¶60

6.2 The Tribunal also took note of the memo filed by the Government indicating that 150 posts of Medical Officers were available and observed that respondent No.1 could be accommodated, having been continued in service and discharging duties without any fault attributable to him. It is further held that respondent No.1, having been selected and having served in the post without any fault attributable to him, cannot be denied the benefit of selection. The Tribunal further

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

directed the authorities to accommodate respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.4 against the available vacancies.

¶65

At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the State Government also intends to file a writ petition challenging the direction issued by the Tribunal to accommodate respondent No.1.

¶66

We note that the order of the Tribunal is dated 22.09.2023. It appears that the consideration to file a writ petition has arisen only after receipt of a copy of the present writ petition. We find no justification to keep the matter pending to enable the State Government to file a writ petition. As on this date, no writ petition has been filed on behalf of the State Government.

¶67

It is an admitted fact that the error in not assigning weightage was committed by the KPSC. For such fault on the part of the KPSC, respondent No.1 cannot be penalised by being removed from the selection list. Denial of appointment at this length of time would seriously prejudice the right of respondent No.1. The prejudice and hardship caused to

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:5777-DB WP No. 20286 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

respondent No.1 due to the mistake of the petitioner has been remedied by the Tribunal, which we are not inclined to disturb.

¶72

In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶73

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶75

DDU

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Dr Prabhulinga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Public Service Commission v. Dr Prabhulinga

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 Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri.G.S.v.Swamy

Smt. Baby M @ Bhagyamma Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Vs M/S Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Smt Radha P Vs Smt B Gayathri

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Siddegowda

Smt. Vinaya Banakar Vs the State of Karnataka