Karnataka High Court

Dr C M Hanumantharaju vs Dr Siddappa on 6 August, 2012

Bench:
Chief Justice
,
B.V.Nagarathna

1 R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

W.A. Nos.2978-86 & 2987-96/2012 C/w 3004-3018/2012,
3020-34/2012 (EDN-RES)

W.A. Nos.2978-86 & 2987-96/2012

BETWEEN:

1. DR C M HANUMANTHARAJU
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC NAMAGONDLU
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPUR

2. DR. S. VENUGOPAL
S/O L. SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
L.H. HOSPITAL
BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY

3. DR. B.R. RAJESH
S/O. RAMAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GH HAGARIBOMANAHALI
BELLARY DISTRICT
BELLARY

4. DR. RAJENDRA, s/O. SOMAPPA
AGED 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MARAVALI SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA

5. DR OM PRAKASH AMBURE
S/O ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC PETA AMMAPURA
YADAGIRI DISTRICT
GULBARGA

6. DR S J MOHAN
S/O S.B. JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MYSOLALU BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA

7. DR. O MALLAPPA
S/O MUDIYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANTAGARAGANGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT

8. DR. B KIRAN KUMAR
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC HIRISAVE
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT

9. DR. SHARANBASAVA
S/O M BASAVARAJ
AGED 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANDOLA JEEVARGI TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT

10. DR. G.B. LINGARAJU
S/O BASAVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GH HOSANAGARA,
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA

11. DR S SHASHANKA
S/O BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TAGGIKUPPE
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

12. DR. H. GIRADDI
S/O HANUMA REDDY
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
B H RONA RONA, RONA TALUK
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG

13. DR S C MASTIHOLI S/O.CHIGAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MURAGODU SAVADATTI
TALUK BELGAUM DISTRICT
BELGAUM
14. DR C.S. SATHISH KUMAR
S/O C. S. NAYAK
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC TALIKOTE, MUDDEBIHAL
TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT
BIJAPUR

15. DR. M.S. JAYANTH
S/O LATE N. SIDDU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS PSYCHIATRY TRAINING
NIMHANS, BANGALORE

16. DR. A HARIPRASAD
S/O VENKAT RAJ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
INDANGI, KOPPAL

17. DR. RAJAKUMAR BIDARAKAR
S/O.ASHOK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AT PHC, DIGGAR
CHITTAPUR TALUK
GULBARGA DISTRICT

18. DR. SC PATIL
S/O CHANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
MEDICAL OFFICER
PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE
HOOLGER TALUK
KOPPAL DISTRICT

19. DR KUMAR H
S/O HUCHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT PHC, HOSURU, KR NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT
... APPELLANTS

(By SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL
A/W. SRI.NITIN, ADV)

AND:

1. DR SIDDAPPA,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O BALAPPA NAIK
OCC: MEDICAL OFFICER,
20 BEDDED HOSPITAL
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL RAMANAGAR
JOIDA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DIST
KARWAR

2. DR SOMASHEKARA KABBERA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O LINGAPPA K
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,
GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABAD,
KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL

3. MRS. GEETHA S M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O MAHADEV,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA, TQ: ANEKAL
DT: BANGALORE URBAN
BANGALORE URBAN

4. DR. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
WORKING AAS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC UJJINI, KUDLIGI TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT

5. DR. GIRIDHAR, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SHANTAMURTHY
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, JAGALUR
JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT
DAVANGERE

6. DR. RAMESH, 37 YEARS
S/O VITTAL RAO
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE URBAN

7. DR. SHARANGOWDA PATIL
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, DEVADURGA
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR

8. DR. SHASHIDHAR
S/O A P RAJASHEKARA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, DAGINAKATTE
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
DAVANGERE

9. DR. CHIKKAREDDY M L
S/O LAKSHMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, HUDLI,
TQ AND DT: BELGAUM
BELGAUM

10. DR. ARUN
S/O DAKSHINAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, VEMGAL
TK & DT: KOLAR
KOLAR

11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY

12. THE COMMISSIONER
HELATH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560009
BANGALORE CITY

13. THE DIRECTOR OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH & FAMILY
WELFARE SERVICES
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560009
BANGALORE CITY

14. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-41
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY
... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri : UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL
A/W. SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV.
FOR C/R1 AND R2 TO R10
SRI. K.M. NATARAJ, ADDL. A.G. A/W.
SRI. B. VEERAPPA, AGA. FOR R11 TO R13
SRI. N.K.RAMESH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R14)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15807-10/12
& WP 15811-12/12 & WP 15813-16/12 DATED 8/6/12.

W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012

BETWEEN:

1. DR SONIA J V
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O MANJUNATH
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-BANAWADI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DIST 562 112

2. DR. LOHITHA H M
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O MAHESHWARAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
DISTRICT HOSPITAL-CHIKKAMAGALUR
CHIKKAMAGALUR DIST 577 101

3. DR. MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O S.S. KUBA KADDI
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-TAVARAGERA
KUSHTAGI TQ, KOPPAL DIST 584 121

4. DR. SHARANAMMA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O GURULINGAPPA PATIL
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
URBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP)
HEERAPURA, GULBARGA 585 101
5. DR. SANJEEV KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O BALAGI SINGH
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KAVALUR
YADGIRI TQ AND DIST 585 201

6. DR VASANTH KUMAR L M
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O L S MINIYAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-ARIKERA
YADGIRI TQ AND DIST 585 201

7. DR B SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O BEERAPPA D
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANNALLI,
BANGALORE URBAN 560 035

8. DR DIVYA KUMARI C T
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O DR NAGESH K R
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANCHANAHALLI
HASSAN TQ AND HASSAN DT. 573 201

9. DR SUMA S R
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O RAMESH R
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL HOSADURGA
HOSADURGA TQ,
CHITRADURGA 577 527

10. DR A R NIRMALA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O SRIKANTH A N
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KONEGHATTA,
DODDABALLAPURA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST, 561 203

11. DR VRUNDA PRABHU K M
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
D/O MOHAN PRABHU
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-MALLANDARU
CHICKMAGALUR DIST 577 101

12. DR RAJU B
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O BASAVEGOWDA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GH-HUNASURU
HUNASURU TQ, MYSORE DIST-577 105

13. DR SRINIVAS R
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O RUDRAMUNI K
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BOLIYARU
D K DIST-575003

14. DR. SATHYAKNARAYAN R
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O RANGE GOWDA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MADUVALAHIPPE
H.N. PURA,
HASSAN DIST 573 201

15. DR SURESH KUMAR H M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O H MARIYAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-MANNE, NELAMANGALA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL-562123 ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. M.N. NANJUNDAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL &
SRI. M.R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI.REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE COMMISSIONER
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
ANANDARAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560 009

3. THE DIRECTOR OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARESERVICES,
ANANDARAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560 009

4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 41
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

5. DR. SREERAM C J
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAMAGIRI, HOLALKERE TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST-577 501

6. DR. SUDEEP KUMAR H C
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC CHIKKJOGIHALI
SHIKARIPURA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST-577 427

7. DR ARATHI M S
D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDDAPURA,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577501

8. DR MAHENDRA A R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SHETTIKERE, C.N. HALLI TQ
TUMKUR DIST-571428

9. DR SRIDHAR D R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC KUSHALNAGAR
COORG DIST-571234

10. DR. ANANDA MANOHARA ZULKI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL
BASAVANABAGEWADI TALUK
BIJAPUR DIST-586 203

11. DR MANJUNATH H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC D.S. HALLI (DODDA SIDDAVANAHALLI)
CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST-577 501
12. DR. VENUGOPAL K J
S/O, LATE K M JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
URBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP-8) NEHRUNAGAR
BHADRAVATHI TQ,
SHIMOGA DIST-577301

13. DR. GURUMURTHY H R
S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SAKRAYAPATNA
KADUR TQ,
CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577548

14. DR GEETH V KINAGI
W/O, DR. SRINIVAS REDDY PATIL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL SEDAM,
GULBARGA DIST-585222

15. DR. SHASHIDHAR D K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-SHANTHIGRAM
HASSAN TQ,
HASSAN DIST-573201

16. DR. SURESH K N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RANGAPURA
TIPTUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST-572201

17. DR. GIRISH KUMAR M N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ARADESHANA HALLI
DEVANAHALLI TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562110

18. DR HANUMANTHARAJU C M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC NAMAGONDLU
GORIBIDANUR TQ
CHICKABALLAPUR DIST-562101

19. DR VENU GOPAL N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
LEGISLATURE HOME DISPENSARY
BANGALORE-560001

20. DR. SATHISH GANGAPPA KABADE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TELSANG
ATHANI TQ,
BELGAUM DIST-591304

21. DR. BALACHANDRA D
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DASANAKOPPA
SIRSI TQ,
NORTHKANARA DIST-581401

22. DR. RAJESH B R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL
HAGARABOMMANAHALLI
H.B.HALLI TQ,
BELLARI DIST-583212

23. DR JAGADESH K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DANDINASHIVARA
TURVEKERE TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572227

24. DR MARULA SIDDAPPA P M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MALEBENNUR
MALEBENNUR TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST-577530

25. DR KUSUMA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAJENDRANAGAR,
MYSORE DIST-570001

26. DR RAJENDRA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MARAVALLI
SHIKARIPURA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST-577427

27. DR GIRISH P B
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KALGERE
CHITRADURGA DIST-577501
28. DR. SHIVANA GOUDA PATIL, MAJOR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-HULIGERI
KUSHTAGI TQ,
KOPPAL DIST-584121

29. DR. KUMARASWAMY M. YETTINAMATH
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ASUNDI
SOUNDATTTI TQ-590001
BELGAUM DIST

30. DR. MOHAN KUMAR C
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SRINGERE
CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577139

31. DR. OMPRAKASH ASHOK AMBURE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC PETAMMAPUR
SURAPURA TALUK YADGIRI DISTRICT-585201

32. DR. VENU GOPAL K L
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC PANDOMATTI
CHANNAGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213

33. DR. MOHAN S J
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MYDOLALU
BHADRAVATHI TQ-577301
SHIMOGA DIST

34. DR JAFAR SADIK FAQIRUDIN SAYED
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANAMADI
BIJAPUR DIST-586101

35. DR. MALKAJAYYA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-SINDHANUR
SINDHANUR TQ
RAICHUR DIST-584101

36. DR KIRAN KUMAR B
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC HIRISAVE
C.R. PATNA TQ
HASSAN DIST-573201

37. DR SHAMMI H
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HALEKOTE
H.N. PURA TQ
HASSAN DIST-573201

38. DR. SHARANA BASAVA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANDOLA
JEWARGI TQ,
GULBARGA DIST-585310

39. DR. BANADESHWARA (BASAVESHWARA) GOBBUR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KOPPAR
DEVADURGA TQ, RAICHUR DIST

40. DR. MANJUNATH S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ALAKAPURA, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-562101

41. DR. SANGANNA L LAKKANNAVAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
DISTRICT SURVELLIANCE OFFICER,
BIJAPUR-586101

42. DR. T.L.N KUMARI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TIPTUR
GUBBI TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572216

43. DR. ANIL KUMAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GUNJAHALLI
RAICHUR TQ,
RAICHUR DIST-584101

44. DR. GOPAL GOVINDA HARAGI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC- KORLKAI
SIDDAPURA TQ,
UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581355

45. DR MOHAN KUMAR S K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RANGANATHAPURA
HIRIYUR TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST-572143

46. DR. MAHESH B. MORE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUSTURU
GANGAVATHI TQ,
KOPPAL DIST-583227

47. DR. SATHISH BABU R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAGGALAD HUNDI
GUNDLUPET TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571111

48. DR SHASHANKA S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TAGGIKUPPE
MAGADI TQ,
RAMANAGARA DIST-562120

49. DR. HANUMA RADDI GIRADI. L, MAJOR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL RON,
GADAG DIST-582101

50. DR. MOHAN KUMAR G M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KULAMBI
HONNALI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST-577217

51. DR KUMAR H
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HOSUR
K R NAGAR TQ
MYSORE DIST-571602

52. DR. GIRISH SIDAGONDAPPA PATIL
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC UKKALI
BAGEWADI TQ
BIJAPUR DIST-586101

53. DR RAJKUMAR A. BIDARKAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DIGGOUN
GULBARGA DIST-585101

54. DR. NAGARAJ
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HADADI
DAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST-577001
55. DR. HARIPRASAD A
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC INDARGI
KOPPAL TQ,
KOPPAL DIST-583231

56. DR. ROOPA C Y
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANDAGAL
DAVANGERE TQ
DAVANGERE DIST-577001

57. DR. DEPALI TELSANG
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YEDIYUR
KUNIGAL TQ
TUMKUR DIST-572130

58. DR. MASTI HOLI SHIVANANDA CHIGAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MURGOD
SOUNDATTI TQ
BELGAUM DIST-590001

59. DR. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ADAGUR
K R NAGAR TQ
MYSORE DIST-571602
60. DR. JAGADISH BIRADAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MUDEBIHAL
MUDEBIHAL TQ,
BIJAPUR DIST-586212

61. DR. RAJESH S T
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAYEE
BANTWAL TQ,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211

62. DR. ASHOK M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BANDIHOLE
KRISHNARAJAPET TQ,
MANDYA DIST-571426

63. DR. RAMESH M C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ALILAGHATTA
GUBBI TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572216

64. DR. LAKSHMIDEVI G B
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL MUNDEGOOD
MUNDUGOD TQ,
UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581349

65. DR. JAYANTH M S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHYSCHIATRY TRAINING AT NIMHANS, BLORE
R/A:NO.657, 17TH MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHI
PURAM, MYSORE-570001

66. DR. MURALIDHARA P D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DEVARABELAKERE
HARIHARA TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST-577601

67. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O. DR V. S. BUTTE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL,
AURAD,
BIDAR DIST-585401

68. DR. SIDDAPPA BALAPPA NAYAK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
20 BEDDED HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA,
JOIDA TQ,
KARWAR DIST-581186

69. DR. ARUNKUMAR D
S/O, DAKSHINA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC VEMAGAL
KOLAR TQ,
KOLAR DIST-563101

70. DR. GIRIDHARA S A
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LSAS (LIFE SAVING ANESTHETIC
SKILL) SPECIALIST AT
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-HARIHARA
HARIHARA TQ, DAVANGERE DIST-577601

71. DR. SOMASHEKHARA KABBERA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABAD
KOPPAL TQ
KOPPAL DIST-583231

72. DR. RAVIKUMAR B V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BALLALA SAMUDRA
HOSADURGA TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST-577527

73. DR. GURUSWAMY N T
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-UJJINI
KUDLIGI TQ,
BELLARY DIST-583135

74. DR. GEETHA S M
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA
ANEKAL TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106

75. DR. DEVARAJA G N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ETHINAVEERAINA KOTTIGE
CHITRADURGA-577501

76. DR. FARUQ JUNEDA
S/O, MOHAMMED ILYES
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DHARADAHALLI,
MUDIGERE TQ
CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577132

77. DR. KRISHNA PRASAD
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SANEMARHALLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ, DIST-577132

78. DR. SRIKANTH B P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MULLUR
HUNSUR TQ,
MYSORE DIST-571105

79. DR. SHARANAGOUDA CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
GOVT. HOSPITAL
DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR DIST-584101

80. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR V S
S/O, V.L. SRINIVASAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BYRAKURA
MULBAGAL TQ
KOLAR DIST-563131
81. DR. MANJUNATH LAXMAPPA CHICKARADDI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HUDALI
BELGAUM TQ,
BELGAUM DIST-590001

82. DR. SHASHIDHAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DAGINAKATTE
CHANNAGIRI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST-577213

83. DR. REVANNA SIDDA B H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HANUMANAL
KUSHTAGI TQ
KOPPAL DIST-584127

84. DR. RAMESH V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA
ANEKAL TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106

85. DR. LEELAVATHY. N
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL-MUNDARAGI
MUNDARAGI TQ, GADAG DIST-582118

86. DR. GURURAJ K J
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-GUKUNTE
MULABAGILU TQ,
KOLAR DIST-563131

87. DR. MALLIKARJUNA M P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KUPPAGADDE
SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DIST-577429

88. DR. S R CHANDRIK BABU
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BILIKERE
HUNSUR TQ,
MYSORE DIST-571105

89. DR. ARUNA PATIL
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI
BELLARY DIST-583135

90. DR. RAVI B S
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BILIKI
SHIKARIPURA TQ,
SHIMOGA DIST-577427

91. DR. JYOTHI S KHANDRE
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, BELURA
BASAVAKALYANA TQ
BIDAR DIST-585401

92. DR. VENKATESHA M P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC Y N HOSAKETE
PAVAGADA TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-561202

93. DR. GEETHA D H
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KUSANURU
HANAGAL TQ,
HAVERI DIST-581104

94. DR. MAHADEVAPRASAD S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KOTHEGALA
HUNSUR TQ
MYSORE DIST-571105

95. DR. SUDHINDRA G B
S/O, BASAVARAJAPPA J S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GOPANAHALLY
CHALLAKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577522

96. DR. SHANKAR NAIK N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU MADHIHALLI
HARAPANAHALLI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST

97. DR. AMMA ARUNACHALA HEGDE
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HIRIADAKA
UDUPI TQ, UDUPI DIST-576101

98. DR. NAVEEN KUMAR H B
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YALLAMBALASE
KADUR TQ,
CHICKAMANGALORE DIST-577548

99. DR. CHAITRA N RAMDAS VERNEKAR
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
HEALTH CENTRE RAJYOTSANAGARA,
BELLARY TQ,
BELLARY DIST-583101

100. DR. K T SRIDHARA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU, HIREKODAGI
KOPPA TQ,
CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577548

101. DR. SUDHINDRANATH S R
S/O RANGANATH S K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KOLADEVI
MULBAGAL TQ
KOLAR DIST-563131

102. DR. SUKUMARA A
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AGRAM
MULBAGAL TQ,
KOLAR DIST-563131

103. DR. BASAVARAJ HANUMANTHAPPA THALWAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL KANAPURA
BELGAUM DIST-590001

104. DR. VISVANATHA REDDY M S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC, HIRESINDGOGI
KOPPAL TQ,
KOPPAL DIST-583231

105. DR. VENKATESH Y
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL-HUNGUND,
BAGALKOT DIST-587118

106. DR. RAVINDRA GOUDAPPA PATIL
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HUNASIKATTI,
BAILHONGA TQ,
BELGAUM DIST-591102

107. DR. T. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDUGERE
CHANNAPATNA TQ, RAMNAGAR DIST-571501

108. DR. MURUGESH K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DADADAHALLI,
HD KOTE TQ,
MYSORE DIST-571125

109. DR. UDHAYASHANKAR S K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-GUDDADARANGEVVANAHALLI,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577501

110. DR. JYOTHI
W/O, DR. K BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SATHANUR
MANDYA DIST-571401

111. DR. RAVINDRA NAIK K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU SAMPIGE, TURUVEKERE TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572227

112. DR. MAMATHA B S
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ARASAPURA,
HARAPANAHALLI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST-583131

113. DR. NANDAKUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANWARI
LINGASUGUR TQ,
RAICHUR DIST-584122

114. DR. SHASHIKALA R
W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAKKERA
SHORAPUR TQ,
YADGIR DIST-585224

115. DR. RADHA H
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUTHAGADOORU
HOLALKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577526

116. DR. VENKATESH P KALAPUR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-ALAND
GULBARGA DIST-585101

117. DR. KIRAN C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HANBAL
SAKLESHPUR TQ,
HASSAN DIST-573134
118. DR. RAGHAVENDRA W KULKARNI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KODLA
SEDAM TQ,
GULBARGA DIST-585222

119. DR. SRIKANTH MALLAPPA SAMBRANI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, ALNAVAR, DHARWAD DIST-580001

120. DR. PRIYADARSHINI N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
INDIA POPULATION PROJECT-9
HEALTH CENTRE
ASHOKNAGAR,
GULBARGA DIST-585101

121. DR. SUBODH KUMAR RAI G
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ADYANADKA
BANTWAL TQ,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST-574211

122. DR. RAVINDRA R ANTEEN
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AKKATHANGERAHALA
GOKAK TQ, BELGAUM DIST-591307

123. DR. NEELESH M N
S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GUDDADA KOMARANAHALLI
CHANNAGERE TQ,
DAVANGIRI DIST-577213

124. DR. SRINIVASA M DEVADURGA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC NARONA
ALANDA TQ,
GULBARGA DIST-585302

125. DR. SHANTHAKUMAR K V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL
H.D. KOTE,
MYSORE DIST-571125

126. DR. LAXMISH NAIK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BANKIKODLA
KUMTA TQ
UTTARA KANNADA DIST-581343

127. DR. KAVITHA K
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-HANAGAL
HANAGAL TQ,
HAVERI DIST-581104

128. DR. SYEEDA AFIYA YASMEEN
D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONKAL
YADGIR TQ, YADGIR DIST-585201

129. DR. RASHMI M N
D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC, MOODBIDRI,
CHICKAMAGALUR DIST-577101

130. DR. LOKESHA C M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AGILE,
HASSAN TQ,
HASSAN DIST-573201

131. DR. PADMAVATHI M
W/O, K HARISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AVATHI
DEVANAHALLI TQ, BANGALORE-562110

132. DR. SHIVAKUMAR L
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SATTEGAL
KOLLEGALA TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST-571440

133. DR. PUTTAPPA S R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MADALU
ARASIKERE TQ,
HASSAN DIST-573103
134. DR. HOYISALA H N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SALAGAME
HASSAN TQ
HASSAN DIST-573201

135. DR. JAGADEESH K JINIGI
S/O, K B JINIGI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DESHNUR
BAILHONGAL TQ
BELGAUM DIST-591102

136. DR. MANJUNATHA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TERAGAON
HALIYAL TQ,
U.K. DIST-581329

137. DR. NAGARAJ
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL
BASAVAKALYAN,
BIDAR DIST-585327

138. DR. MAHESH H S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HOSAKERE
MADHUGERE TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572132

139. DR. DHANALAKSHMI D P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BELEGERE
TIPTUR TQ,
TUMKUR DIST-572201

140. DR. PRAVEEN A S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GOWDIHALLI
HOLAKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST-577526

141. DR. MADHUSUDHAN M R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SARAGURU
HD KOTE TQ,
MYSORE DIST-571125

142. DR. DAYAMANI B
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SIDDAPURA KADUGONDAHALLI
BANGALORE WEST TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST-560045

143. DR. SARALA H S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONEHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-561203

144. DR. VISHWAJITH NAYAK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KUNDANA
DEVANAHALLI TQ
BANGALORE TQ-562110

145. DR. PARAMESHWAR SURESH KENCHANNAVAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUNAVALLI
SAUNDATTI TQ, BELGAUM DIST-591126

146. DR. VIKAS PARAPPA SAVADI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDAKAVI
RAMADURGA TQ,
BELGAUM DIST-591123

147. DR. VIJAY KUMAR H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YELAKETHANEHALLI
NELAMANGALA TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562123

148. DR. MOHAMMED YOUSNUS SALEEM
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONKAL
YADGIR TQ
YADGIR DIST-585201

149. DR. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC THONDEBHAVI
GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-562101

150. DR. SHASHIKUMAR S D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC D K HALLI
MALAVALLI TQ,
MANDYA DIST-571430

151. DR. RAJKUMAR R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MANIGANAHALLI
MAGADI TQ,
RAMANAGARA DIST-562120

152. DR. MALLIKARJUNA G P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC JADE
SORABA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST-577429

153. DR. SANTHOSH A N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA DIST-577541

154. DR. K SATHISH BABU
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ELLODU
GUDDIBANDE TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST-561209

155. DR. MEEAN KUMARI T D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDENURA
KUSTAGI TQ,
KOPPAL DIST-584121

156. DR. GEETHA N S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,
PHC M C HALLI,
TARIKERE TQ, CHICKMAGALUR TQ - 577 101.

157. DR. A RAMU
S/O G.ANAJANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER,
PHC., SOMAYAJALAHALLI.,
SRINIVASAPUR TQ, KOLAR DIST - 563 135.

158. DR ANITHA N S
W/O, DR.PUTTEGOWDA T,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KODDIHALLI KOPPALU
HASSAN DIST - 573 201.

159. DR. BHARATHI P
W/O DR. MAHESH M
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAMAGERE, KOLLEGAL TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST - 571 443.

160. DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD T C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KALLANAKUPPE
RAMANAGAR DIST - 571 511

161. DR. ANASUYA M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC N G HALLI TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501.

162. DR. NAVEEN R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC (EXTENSION UNIT) DODDAPALANAHALLI
YELERAMPURA
KORATAGERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST - 572 129.

163. DR. BHANUMATHI P M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDALAHIPPE
HOLENARASIPURA TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 211

164. DR. SUCHETHA K R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI
BANGALORE EAST TQ - 562 149
BANGALORE URBAN DIST.

165. DR.VEENA H N
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TOPASANDRA
RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 112
166. DR.DHANYA KUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KADANUR
DODDABALLAPURA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 561 203

167. DR. RAGHAVENDRA G S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUTTODU, HOSADURGA TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 527.

168. DR. RAVI KANTHI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAMALAPURA,
GULBARGA TQ/DIST - 582 101.

169. KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTICS MINORITY,
PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES ASSOCIATION, FLAT
NO.143, 4TH FLOOR,
SURYAMUKHI, GARDEN APARTMENTS,
# 21, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 055,
BY ITS CONVENER.

170. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL ENGINEERING AND
DENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA,
# 132, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 055,
BY ITS CONVENER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W.
SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
C/R-63, R68 TO R71, R73, R82, R86 AND R95
SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, ADV. FOR
M/S. P.S.RAJAGOPAL ASSTS. HAS BEEN
PUT UP WITH W.A.NO.3020/12, & CP.NO.345/12,
SRI. RAVIVERMAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W.
SRI. V.R.SARATHY, ADV. FOR R7, R8 & R16.)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15417/12 &
15636-664/12 DATED 8/6/12

W.A.Nos.3020-34/2012:

BETWEEN:

1. DR. GEETHA PRIYA P
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O SUBINDH
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-K.M DODDI,
MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DIST - 571 428.

2. DR JAYANTHI R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
W/O DEVADASS R
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-SIDDAGANGA MATHA
TUMKUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST - 572 101

3. DR. MAHADEVA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O GOPALA NAYAKA
WORKING AS DIST. SURV. OFFICER
DSO-CHAMARAJANAGAR
CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ DIST - 571 313

4. DR G S SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O G T SUBBE GOWDA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICERS
CHC-UDAYAPURA
C R PATNA TQ, HASSAN DIST - 573 201

5. DR H K RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O KENCHAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC - KODIHALLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DIST - 562 112

6. DR. SATHISH M K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O KENCHAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
MSDM-HOSPITAL KOPPA
CHIKKAMAGALORE DIST - 577 101

7. DR GEETHA K B
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O MANJU PRAKASH
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-LAGGERE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DIST - 560 058

8. DR NAGAPPA G S
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SHIVANNA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC- RAYAKOPPALU
ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST - 573 201.

9. DR D N NAGALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SRIKANTH P C
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC- KOWSHIKA
HASSAN TQ/DIST - 573 201.
10. DR BRAHMENDRA M
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O M MARISWAMY
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
DISTRICT HOSPITAL,
CHAMARAJANAGAR
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 313

11. DR PARAVEEN KUMAR C H
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O RAGHUVEER C H
WORKING AS DISTRICT
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
DHO OFFICE,
BANGALORE RURAL - 560 001

12. DR CHENNAKESHAVA S P
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE PAPPA SETTAPPA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-THOVINAKERE.
KORATAGERE TQ
TUMKUR DIST - 571 428

13. DR G R RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNAYYA
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
ADD. DIST. TB CENTRE-SIRA,
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST - 571 428.

14. DR. SAKHARAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SHANKAR SHETTY
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-BELAWADI
CHIKKAMAGALUR TQ AND DIST - 577 101.

15. DR C SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O. P B PRAKASH
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KUDLAPURA
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DIST - 571 301. ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI: M.N.NANJUNDAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL &
SRI. M.R. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONER
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
ANANDARAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE - 560 009

3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
ANANDARAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 009.

4. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF
HEALTH SCIENCES
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 41,
REPTD. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

5. DR.SREERAM C J
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAMAGIRI, HOLALKERE TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501.

6. DR. SUDEEP KUMAR H C
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC CHIKKJOGIHALI
SHIKARIPURA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 427

7. DR ARATHI M S
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDDAPURA,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501

8. DR MAHENDRA A R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SHETTIKERE, C.N. HALLI TQ
TUMKUR DIST - 571 428

9. DR SRIDHAR D R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC KUSHALNAGAR
COORG DIST - 571 234

10. DR. ANANDA MANOHARA ZULKI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL
BASAVANABAGEWADI TALUK
BIJAPUR DIST - 586 203

11. DR MANJUNATH H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC D.S. HALLI (DODDA SIDDAVANAHALLI)
CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST - 577 501

12. DR. VENUGOPAL K J
S/O, LATE K M JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
URBAN HEALTH CENTRE (IPP-8) NEHRUNAGAR
BHADRAVATHI TQ, SHIMOGA DIST - 577 301.

13. DR. GURUMURTHY H R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SAKRAYAPATNA
KADUR TQ, CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 548

14. DR GEETHA.V.KINAGI
W/O, DR. SRINIVAS REDDY PATIL
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL SEDAM,
GULBARGA DIST - 585 222

15. DR. SHASHIDHAR D K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-SHANTHIGRAM
HASSAN TQ, HASSAN DIST - 573 201

16. DR. SURESH K N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RANGAPURA
TIPTUR TQ, TUMKUR DIST - 572 201
17. DR. GIRISH KUMAR K N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ARADESHANA HALLI
DEVANAHALLI TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 110

18. DR HANUMANTHARAJU C M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC NAMAGONDLU
GORIBIDANUR TQ
CHICKABALLAPUR DIST - 562 101

19. DR VENU GOPAL N
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
LEGISLATURE HOME DISPENSARY
BANGALORE - 560 001

20. DR. SATHISH GANGAPPA KABADE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TELSANG
ATHANI TQ, BELGAUM DIST - 591 304

21. DR. BALACHANDRA D
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DASANAKOPPA
SIRSI TQ, NORTHKANARA DIST - 581 401

22. DR. RAJESH B R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL
HAGARABOMMANAHALLI
H.B.HALLI TQ, BELLARY DIST - 572 227

23. DR JAGADESH K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DANDINASHIVARA
TURVEKERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST - 572 227

24. DR MARULA SIDDAPPA P M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MALEBENNUR
MALEBENNUR TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 530

25. DR KUSUMA
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAJENDRANAGAR,
MYSORE DIST - 570001

26. DR RAJENDRA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MARAVALLI
SHIKARIPURA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 427

27. DR GIRISH P B
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KALGERE
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501
28. DR. SHIVANA GOUDA PATIL
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGE : MAJOR,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-HULIGERI
KUSHTAGI TQ, KOPPAL DIST - 584 121

29. DR. KUMARASWAMY M YETTINAMATH
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ASUNDI, SOUNDATTTI TQ,
BELGAUM DIST - 590 001

30. DR. MOHAN KUMAR C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SRINGERE
CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 139

31. DR. OMPRAKASH ASHOK AMBURE
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC PEAMMAPUR
SURAPURA TQ, YADGIRI DIST - 585 201

32. DR. VENU GOPAL K L
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC PANDOMATTI
CHANNAGERE TQ
DAVANAGERE DIST - 577 213

33. DR. MOHAN S J
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MYDOLALU
BHADRAVATHI TQ
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 301

34. DR JAFAR SADIK FAQIRUDIN SAYED
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANAMADI, BIJAPUR DIST - 586 101

35. DR. MALKAJAYYA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-SINDHANUR
SINDHANUR TQ, RAICHUR DIST - 584 101

36. DR KIRAN KUMAR B
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC HIRISAVE
C.R. PATNA TQ, HASSAN DIST - 573 201

37. DR SHAMMI H
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HALEKOTE
H.N. PURA TQ, HASSAN DIST - 573 201

38. DR. SHARANA BASAVA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANDOLA
JEWARGI TQ, GULBARGA DIST - 585 310

39. DR. BANADESHWARA (BASAVESHWARA) GOBBUR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KOPPAR
DEVADURGA TQ, RAICHUR DIST - 584 101

40. DR. MANJUNATH S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ALAKAPURA, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST - 562 101

41. DR. SANGAMMA L LAKKANNAVAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
DISTRICT SURVELLIANCE OFFICER,
BIJAPUR - 586 101

42. DR. T.L.N KUMARI
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TIPTUR, GUBBI TQ,
TUMKUR DIST - 572 216

43. DR. ANIL KUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GUNJAHALLI
RAICHUR TQ, RAICHUR DIST - 584 101

44. DR. GOPAL GOVINDA HARAGI
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KORLKAI, SIDDAPURA TQ,
UTTARA KANNADA DIST - 581 355

45. DR MOHAN KUMAR S K
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RANGANATHAPURA
HIRIYUR TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST - 572 143

46. DR. MAHESH B MORE
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUSTURU, GANGAVATHI TQ,
KOPPAL DIST - 583 227

47. DR. SATHISH BABU R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAGGALAD HUNDI
GUNDLUPET TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 111

48. DR SHASHANKA S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TAGGIKUPPE, MAGADI TQ,
RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 120

49. DR. HANUMA RADDI GIRADI L
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGE : MAJOR,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL RON,
GADAG DIST - 582 101

50. DR. MOHAN KUMAR G M
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KULAMBI, HONNALI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 217
51. DR KUMAR H
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HOSUR, K R NAGAR TQ
MYSORE DIST - 571 602

52. DR. GIRISH SIDAGONDAPPA PATIL
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC UKKALI, BAGEWADI TQ,
BIJAPUR DIST - 586 101

53. DR RAJKUMAR A BIDARKAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DIGGOUN
GULBARGA DIST - 585 101

54. DR. NAGARAJ
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HADADI
DAVANAGERE TQ AND DIST - 577 001

55. DR. HARIPRASAD A
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC INDARGI, KOPPAL TQ,
KOPPAL DIST - 583 231

56. DR. ROOPA C Y
W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KANDAGAL, DAVANGERE TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 001
57. DR. DEPALI TELSANG
W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YEDIYUR, KUNIGAL TQ,
TUMKUR DIST

58. DR. MASTI HOLI SHIVANANDA CHIGAPPA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MURGOD, SOUNDATTI TQ,
BELGAUM DIST - 590 001

59. DR. MADHUSUDHAN
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ADAGUR, K R NAGAR TQ
MYSORE DIST - 571 602

60. DR. JAGADISH BIRADAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MUDEBIHAL, MUDEBIHAL TQ,
BIJAPUR DIST - 586 212.

61. DR. RAJESH S T
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC RAYEE, BANTWAL TQ,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574 211

62. DR. ASHOK M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BANDIHOLE, KRISHNARAJAPET TQ,
MANDYA DIST - 571 426

63. DR. RAMESH M C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ALILAGHATTA, GUBBI TQ,
TUMKUR DIST - 572 216

64. DR. LAKSHMIDEVI G B
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL MUNDEGOD
MUNDUGOD TQ,
UTTARA KANNADA DIST - 581 349.

65. DR. JAYANTH M S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHYSCHIATRY TRAINING AT NIMHANS,
BANGLORE, R/A:NO.657, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 001

66. DR. MURALIDHARA P D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DEVARABELAKERE
HARIHARA TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 601

67. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O, DR V. S. BUTTE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL,
AURAD, BIDAR DIST - 585 401

68. DR. SIDDAPPA BALAPPA NAYAK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
20 BEDDED HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA,
JOIDA TQ, KARWAR DIST - 581 186

69. DR. ARUNKUMAR D
S/O, DAKSHINA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC VEMAGAL, KOLAR TQ,
KOLAR DIST - 563 101

70. DR. GIRIDHARA S A
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS LSAS (LIFE SAVING ANESTHETIC
SKILL) SPECIALIST AT
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-HARIHARA
HARIHARA TQ, DAVANGERE DIST - 577 601

71. DR. SOMASHEKHARA KABBERA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, MUNIRABAD
KOPPAL TQ, KOPPAL DIST - 583 231

72. DR. RAVIKUMAR B V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BALLALA SAMUDRA
HOSADURGA TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 527

73. DR. GURUSWAMY N T
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-UJJINI, KUDLIGI TQ,
BELLARY DIST - 583 135

74. DR. GEETHA S M
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA
ANEKAL TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST - 562 106

75. DR. DEVARAJA G N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ETHINAVEERAINA KOTTIGE
CHITRADURGA - 577 501

76. DR. FARUQ JUNEDA
S/O, MOHAMMED ILYES
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DHARADAHALLI,
MUDIGERE TQ
CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 132

77. DR. KRISHNA PRASAD
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SANEMARHALLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ, DIST - 571 313

78. DR. SRIKANTH B P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MULLUR, HUNSUR TQ,
MYSORE DIST - 571 105

79. DR. SHARANAGOUDA CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GOVT. HOSPITAL DEVADURGA,
RAICHUR DIST - 584 101

80. DR. SHANTHOSH KUMAR V S
S/O, V.L. SRINIVASAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BYRAKURA MULBAGAL TQ
KOLAR DIST - 563 131

81. DR. MANJUNATH LAXMAPPA CHICKARADDI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HUDALI, BELGAUM TQ,
BELGAUM DIST - 590 001

82. DR. SHASHIDHAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DAGINAKATTE, CHANNAGIRI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 213

83. DR. REVANNA SIDDA B H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HANUMANAL, KUSHTAGI TQ
KOPPAL DIST - 584 127

84. DR. RAMESH V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST - 562 106

85. DR. LEELAVATHY. N
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK HOSPITAL-MUNDARAGI
MUNDARAGI TQ, GADAG DIST - 582 118

86. DR. GURURAJ K J
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-GUKUNTE, MULABAGILU TQ,
KOLAR DIST - 563 131

87. DR. MALLIKARJUNA M P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KUPPAGADDE, SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 429

88. DR. S R CHANDRIK BABU
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BILIKERE, HUNSUR TQ,
MYSORE DIST - 571 105

89. DR. ARUNA PATIL
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, KUDLIGI
BELLARY DIST - 583 135

90. DR. RAVI B S
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BILIKI, SHIKARIPURA TQ,
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 427
91. DR. JYOTHI S KHANDRE
W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, BELURA, BASAVAKALYANA TQ,
BIDAR DIST - 585 401

92. DR. VENKATESHA M P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC Y N HOSAKETE, PAVAGADA TQ,
TUMKUR DIST

93. DR. GEETHA D H
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KUSANURU, HANAGAL TQ,
HAVERI DIST - 581 104

94. DR. MAHADEVAPRASAD S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KOTHEGALA, HUNSUR TQ,
MYSORE DIST - 571 105

95. DR. SUDHINDRA G B
S/O, BASAVARAJAPPA J S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GOPANAHALLY
CHALLAKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 522

96. DR. SHANKAR NAIK N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU MADHIHALLI
HARAPANAHALLI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 583 131

97. DR. AMNA ARUNACHALA HEGDE
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HIRIADAKA
UDUPI TQ, UDUPI DIST - 576 101

98. DR. NAVEEN KUMAR H B
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YALLAMBALASE, KADUR TQ,
CHICKAMANGALORE DIST -

99. DR. CHAITRA N RAMDAS VERNEKAR
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
HEALTH CENTRE RAJYOTSANAGARA,
BELLARY TQ,
BELLARY DIST

100. DR. K T SRIDHARA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU, HIREKODAGI
KOPPA TQ,
CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 548

101. DR. SUDHINDRANATH S R
S/O RANGANATH S K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KOLADEVI, MULBAGAL TQ
KOLAR DIST - 563 131

102. DR. SUKUMARA A
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AGRAM, MULBAGAL TQ,
KOLAR DIST - 563 131

103. DR. BASAVARAJ HANUMANTHAPPA THALWAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL KANAPURA
BELGAUM DIST - 590 001

104. DR. VISVANATHA REDDY M S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC, HIRESINDOGI, KOPPAL TQ,
KOPPAL DIST - 583 231

105. DR. VENKATESH Y
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL-HUNGUND,
BAGALKOT DIST - 587 118.

106. DR. RAVINDRA GOUDAPPA PATIL
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HUNASIKATTI, BAILHONGA TQ,
BELGAUM DIST - 591 102

107. DR. T. MAHENDRA KUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDUGERE
CHANNAPATNA TQ, RAMNAGAR DIST - 571 501
108. DR. MURUGESH K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DADADAHALLI, HD KOTE TQ,
MYSORE DIST -571 125

109. DR. UDHAYASHANKAR S K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-GUDDADARANGEVVANAHALLI,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501

110. DR. JYOTHI
W/O DR. K BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SATHANUR
MANDYA DIST - 571 401

111. DR. RAVINDRA NAIK K
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHU SAMPIGE, TURUVEKERE TQ,
TUMKUR DIST - 572 227

112. DR. MAMATHA B S
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ARASAPURA,
HARAPANAHALLI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 583 131

113. DR. NANDAKUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ANWARI, LINGASUGUR TQ,
RAICHUR DIST - 584 122

114. DR. SHASHIKALA R
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAKKERA, SHORAPUR TQ,
YADGIR DIST - 585 224

115. DR. RADHA H
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUTHAGADOORU
HOLALKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 526

116. DR. VENKATESH P KALAPUR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL-ALAND
GULBARGA DIST - 585 101

117. DR. KIRAN C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HANBAL, SAKLESHPUR TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 134

118. DR. RAGHAVENDRA W KULKARNI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KODLA, SEDAM TQ,
GULBARGA DIST.S

119. DR. SRIKANTH MALLAPPA SAMBRANI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC, ALNAVAR, DHARWAD DIST - 580 001

120. DR. PRIYADARSHINI N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
INDIA POPULATION PROJECT-9 HEALTH CENTRE
ASHOKNAGAR, GULBARGA DIST - 585 101.

121. DR. SUBODH KUMAR RAI G
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ADYANADKA, BANTWAL TQ,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574 211

122. DR. RAVINDRA R ANTEEN
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AKKATHANGERAHALA
GOKAK TQ, BELGAUM DIST - 591 307

123. DR. NEELESH M N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GUDDADA KOMARANAHALLI
CHANNAGIRI TQ,
DAVANGERE DIST - 577 213

124. DR. SRINIVASA M DEVADURGA
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC NARONA, ALANDA TQ,
GULBARGA DIST - 585 302

125. DR. SHANTHAKUMAR K V
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, H.D.KOTE,
MYSORE DIST - 571 125

126. DR. LAXMISH NAIK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BANKIKODLA, KUMTA TQ
UTTARA KANNADA DIST - 581 343

127. DR. KAVITHA K
W/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC-HANAGAL, HANAGAL TQ,
HAVERI DIST - 581 104

128. DR. SYEEDA AFIYA YASMEEN
D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONKAL, YADGIR TQ,
YADGIR DIST - 585 201

129. DR. RASHMI M N
D/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC MOODBIDRI,
CHICKAMAGALUR DIST - 577 101

130. DR. LOKESHA C M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AGILE, HASSAN TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 201

131. DR. PADMAVATHI M
W/O, K HARISH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC AVATHI, DEVANAHALLI TQ,
BANGALORE - 562 110

132. DR. SHIVAKUMAR L
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SATTEGAL, KOLLEGALA TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST - 571 440

133. DR. PUTTAPPA S R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MADALU, ARASIKERE TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 103

134. DR. HOYISALA H N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SALAGAME, HASSAN TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 201

135. DR. JAGADEESH K JINIGI
S/O K B JINIGI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC DESHNUR, BAILHONGAL TQ
BELGAUM DIST - 591 102

136. DR. MANJUNATHA
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TERAGAON, HALIYAL TQ,
U.K. DIST - 591 329
137. DR. NAGARAJ
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
TALUK GENERAL HOSPITAL
BASAVAKALYAN,
BIDAR DIST - 585 325

138. DR. MAHESH H S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC HOSAKERE, MADHUGERE TQ,
TUMKUR DIST - 572 132

139. DR. DHANALAKSHMI D P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC BELEGERE, TIPTUR TQ,
TUMKUR DIST - 572 201

140. DR. PRAVEEN A S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC GOWDIHALLI, HOLAKERE TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 526

141. DR. MADHUSUDHAN M R
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SARAGURU, HD KOTE TQ,
MYSORE DIST 571 125

142. DR. DAYAMANI B
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SIDDAPURA KADUGONDAHALLI
BANGALORE WEST TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST - 560 045

143. DR. SARALA H S
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONEHALLI
DODDABALLAPURA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 561 203

144. DR. VISHWAJITH NAYAK
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KUNDANA
DEVANAHALLI TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 110.

145. DR. PARAMESHWAR SURESH KENCHANNAVAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUNAVALLI
SAUNDATTI TQ, BELGAUM DIST - 591 126

146. DR. VIKAS PARAPPA SAVADI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDAKAVI, RAMADURGA TQ,
BELGAUM DIST - 591 123

147. DR. VIJAY KUMAR H
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC YELAKETHANEHALLI
NELAMANGALA TQ
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 123
148. DR. MOHAMMED YOUSNUS SALEEM
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KONKAL, YADGIR TQ
YADGIR DIST - 585 201

149. DR. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC THONDEBHAVI
GOWRIBIDANUR TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST - 562 101

150. DR. SHASHIKUMAR S D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC D K HALLI, MALAVALLI TQ,
MANDYA DIST - 571 430

151. DR. RAJKUMAR R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MANIGANAHALLI
MAGADI TQ, RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 120

152. DR. MALLIKARJUNA G P
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC JADE, SORABA TQ
SHIMOGA DIST - 577 429

153. DR. SANTHOSH A N
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
CHC SIRIGERE
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 541

154. DR. K SATHISH BABU
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC ELLODU, GUDDIBANDE TQ,
CHICKBALLAPUR DIST - 561 209

155. DR. MEEAN KUMARI T D
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDENURA, KUSTAGI TQ,
KOPPAL DIST - 584 121

156. DR. GEETHA N S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC M C HALLI, TARIKERE TQ,
CHICKMAGALUR DIST - 577 101

157. DR. A RAMU
S/O, G. ANAJANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC SOMAYAJALAHALLI
SRINIVASAPUR TQ,
KOLAR DIST - 563 135

158. DR ANITHA N S
W/O, DR. PUTTEGOWDA T
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC-KODDIHALLI KOPPALU
HASSAN DIST - 573 201

159. DR. BHARATHI P
W/O DR. MAHESH M
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAMAGERE
KOLLEGAL TQ,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST - 571 443

160. DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD T C
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KALLANAKUPPE
RAMANAGAR DIST - 571 511

161. DR. ANASUYA M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC N G HALLI TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 501

162. DR. NAVEEN R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC (EXTENSION UNIT) DODDAPALANAHALLI
YELERAMPURA
KORATAGERE TQ, TUMKUR DIST - 572 129

163. DR. BHANUMATHI P M
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUDALAHIPPE
HOLENARASIPURA TQ,
HASSAN DIST - 573 211

164. DR. SUCHETHA K R
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KADUSONNAPPANAHALLI
BANGALORE EAST TQ - 562 149
BANGALORE URBAN DIST.

165. DR. VEENA H N
D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC TOPASANDRA
RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 112

166. DR.DHANYA KUMAR
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KADANUR
DODDABALLAPURA TQ,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 561 203

167. DR. RAGHAVENDRA G S
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC MUTTODU, HOSADURGA TQ,
CHITRADURGA DIST - 577 527

168. DR. RAVI KANTHI
S/O, NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER
PHC KAMALAPURA
GULBARGA TQ/DIST - 585 101

169. KARNATAKA RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTICS
MINORITY, PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES
ASSOCIATION, FLAT NO.143, 4TH FLOOR,
SURYAMUKHI, GARDEN APARTMENTS,
# 21, VITTAL MALLAYA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 055,
BY ITS CONVENER.

170. CONSORTIUM OF MEDICAL ENGINEERING AND
DENTAL COLLEGES OF KARNATAKA,
# 132, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN,
17TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 055,
BY ITS CONVENER. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, SR. COUNSEL
A/W.SRI. NITIN, ADV. FOR R18 & R19
SRI. UDAY S.HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL A/W.
SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR
C/R63, R68, R69, R70, R71, R73, R82, R86, R95
SRI. M.N.PRASANNA, ADV. FOR
M/S.P S RAJAGOPAL ASSTS. FOR
C/R.127 & 159, SRI.DR.N.G.NAGARAJ IS
NOT ENTERS INTO THE PRESENT W.A.NO.3020/12)

THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 15417/12 &
15636-664/12 DATED 8/6/12.

THESE APPEALS BEING RESERVED AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

These appeals assail the order of the learned Single

Judge dated 08.06.2012, in W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 &

W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012 and W.P.Nos.15813-

15816/2012, which were filed by in-service doctors appointed

on contract basis and were regularised in the year 2007.
2. W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 were filed

by the in-service doctors assailing the inclusion of respondent

Nos.5 to 168 therein in the provisional departmental merit

list. Respondent Nos.5 to 66 therein are doctors absorbed as

regular doctors under the provisions of Karnataka Civil

Service (Absorption of Doctors appointed on Contract Basis in

the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare

Services) (Special) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Absorption Rules, 2006' for the sake of brevity). Similarly,

respondent Nos.67 to 124 in the writ petitions are absorbed

under the aforesaid Rules of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Absorption Rules, 2007') and respondent Nos.125 to

168 in the said writ petitions are doctors appointed by direct

recruitment in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The learned

Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions, against which

Writ Appeal Nos.3004-3018/2012 and Writ Appeal Nos.3020-

3034/2012 have been filed by a batch of thirty petitioners. In

view of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions,

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and W.P.Nos.15811-

15812/2012 and W.P.Nos.15813-15816/2012 were allowed,

wherein the circulars and ranking list issued pursuant to the
interim orders granted in W.P.No.15417/2012 and

W.P.Nos.15636-634/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012 were

assailed. The circulars and the ranking list issued pursuant

to the interim orders were quashed by the learned Single

Judge.

3. W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 were filed by the doctors

appointed initially on contract basis and later by direct

recruitment in 2007 and 2009. These writ petitions were also

allowed by the learned Single Judge. W.P.Nos.15365-

15366/2012 also assailed the notification dated 21.02.2012.

They were filed by doctors who were initially appointed on

contract basis and absorbed by the Absorption Rules, 2006

while W.P.No.15365/2012 was dismissed as not pressed.

W.P.No.15366/2012 was dismissed on merits. That apart,

W.A.Nos.2978-2996/2012 are filed by nineteen doctors who

were not parties to the writ petitions, being aggrieved by the

order of the learned Single Judge with regard to

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012, W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012

and W.P.Nos. 15813-15816/2012.
4. To complete the details of the writ petitions filed and

disposed of by the learned Single Judge, it is also necessary

to note that W.P.No.14430/2012 was disposed of with a

direction to the respondent authorities to consider the

petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2012 and pass

appropriate orders thereon within a period of four days. In

para 80 of the order, the learned Single Judge has directed as

follows:

"80. As these petitions are filed by the in-service
doctors appointed in different years and from
different sources making the claims and counter-
claims, the matter required considered hearing. To
ward off the confusion and uncertainty, I directed
the maintenance of status quo in respect of the
counseling, which has already taken place and
stayed all further counseling proceedings. The
same was by my interim order, dated 24.5.2012.
As the interim order continued to be in force from
24.5.2012 till 8.6.2012, I deem it necessary and
just to direct the extension of time for the completion
of the counseling process for admission to
postgraduate medical courses from the in-service
category of doctors till 15.6.2012."
It is in the above circumstances, we have heard these

writ appeals together and the same are disposed of by this

common judgment.

Factual Matrix:

5. The controversy in general in these writ appeals

pertains to the admission to Post-graduate medical and

dental degree and diploma courses, (but specifically with

regard to medical courses) of doctors working in various

Departments of the State Government and other Authorities

as in-service candidates. The respondent-Rajiv Gandhi

University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the

'respondent-University') issued a notification dated

21.11.2011 calling upon the eligible candidates to apply for

the Entrance Test for admission to Post-Graduate Medical

and Dental Courses. A brochure viz., "PG Entrance Test-

2012" containing the details of Post-Graduate Entrance Test

for Admission to Medical and Dental Courses for the

academic year 2012-13 was also issued. The respondent-

University is responsible for conducting the Entrance Test

under the provisions of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance
Test for Selection and Admission to Post-Graduate Medical

and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as 'the PGET Rules, 2006' for the

sake of brevity). As per the said brochure, the in-service

candidates were required to submit their applications through

proper channel i.e., the Heads of the Department in which

they are working to the respondent-University. The last date

for receipt of applications was 31.12.2011. The Entrance Test

was conducted on 29.01.2012. The results were announced

on 13.02.2012. The announcement of the merit list was on

20.02.2012. The Commissioner for Health and Family

Welfare Services issued a Circular on 16.05.2012 listing out

the candidates eligible to attend the counseling to be

conducted by the respondent-University on 17.05.2012. The

said Circular was issued pursuant to the interim order dated

15.05.2012 granted in W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012,

W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-15664/2012.

Being aggrieved by the Circular dated 16.05.2012,

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012, W.P.Nos.15811-15812/2012

and 15813-15816/2012 were filed assailing the Circular

dated 16.05.2012 and also seeking a direction to permit the
said petitioners to be counseled in in-service quota in medical

stream on 17.05.2012.

6. In fact, even prior to the issuance of the Circular dated

16.05.2012, by notification dated 04.05.2012, the

respondent-University had fixed the first round of counseling

for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses

on the basis of the provisional rank list issued on 11.04.2012.

But the final departmental merit list had not yet been

published though the date for counseling had been notified.

Being aggrieved by the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 by notification dated 21.02.2012

as well as notification issued on 18.01.2011 and 07.04.2011

whereby an amendment was made to the PGET Rules, 2006,

W.P.No.15417/2012 and connected matters and

W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 were filed against the inclusion

of respondent Nos.5 to 168 in the writ petitions, in the

provisional merit list, in which interim orders were granted by

this court. By interim order dated 15.05.2012, the said

notifications, giving retrospective effect from 30.12.2011 were

stayed until further orders. Similarly, in W.P.Nos.15365-
15366/2012, the notification dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure-B

to the writ petition) giving retrospective effect to the

notification dated 21.02.2012 and consequential proceedings

initiated by the respondent-authorities were stayed by interim

order dated 15.05.2012.

7. The grievance of the in-service doctors who filed the

subsequent batch of writ petitions was with regard to their

exclusion from counseling as a result of the issuance of

Circular dated 16.05.2012 in the wake of interim order in

W.P.Nos.15365-16366/2012, wherein the notification dated

21.02.2012 omitting the condition that the Absorbed doctors

could not be deputed for higher studies for a period of six

years from the date of absorption was assailed. Annexure-Q

is the Circular dated 16.05.2012 in W.P.Nos.15807-

15810/2012 and connected writ petitions.

Relevant Acts and Rules:

8. Having regard to the reliefs sought by various groups of

in-service candidates, reference to the relevant Acts and Rules

which apply needs to be made at this stage itself, so as to
have a clear understanding of the elaborate arguments made

by learned counsel on behalf of various categories of in-

service candidates.

9. During the last decade and half, the State of Karnataka

had appointed a number of doctors on contract basis without

resorting to direct recruitment. Though these doctors may

have been appointed through a regular process of selection on

the basis of merit, they were not doctors regularly appointed

in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment of the State

Government. Since they were appointed on contract basis

and had served for a considerable length of time, the State

Government took a decision to absorb them into service in the

Department of Health and Family Welfare. Accordingly, the

Absorption Rules were notified in the years 2006, 2007 and

2009 i.e., on 16.03.2006, 06.07.2007 and 29.01.2010

respectively. Rules 3 and 5 of Absorption Rules, 2006 read as

under:

"3. Absorption of Contract Doctors in the
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare
Services into the State Civil Services:- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Karnataka State Civil Services (General
Recruitment) Rules, 1977 or the Karnataka
Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1965 or any other rules made
for deemed to have been made under the provisions
of the
Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978

(Karnataka Act
14 of 1990) every Contract Doctor
mentioned in column (2) of the Schedule and
continued as such on the date of commencement of
these rules, shall with effect from such date of
commencement be absorbed in the corresponding
category of post and pay scale specified in columns
(5) and (6) thereof, respectively, in the Directorate of
Health and Family Welfare Services.

Provided that no such person shall be
absorbed:
i) if he was disqualified for appointment under
the Karnataka Civil Services (General
Recruitment)Rules, 1977 on the date of his

appointment as Doctor on contract basis;

ii) if he does not possess the minimum academic
qualification, specified in the rules of recruitment
applicable for recruitment to the said post;

iii) in any post reserved for the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes or other Backward Classes to which he was
appointed as contract Doctor, if he is found to be
not belonging to such Castes, Tribes or Classes, as
the case may be otherwise such posts shall be
filled by process of special recruitment from among
these classes.

(2) The Contract Doctor who are absorbed under
these rules, shall after absorption, work atleast for
the period of six years from the date of
commencement of these rules, at first in rural areas
and shall not be deputed for higher studies during
that period.

* * *

5. Application of other rules: The provisions of
the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, the Karnataka
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and all other
rules regulating the conditions of service of
Government Servants insofar as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of these rules, shall
apply to persons absorbed under these rules."

The Absorption Rules 2007 are similar to Absorption
Rules, 2006 except with regard to sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 which
reads as follows:

"(2) The Contract Doctors who are absorbed under
these rules, shall after absorption, work atleast for
the period of ten years from the date of
commencement of these rules, at first in rural
areas. They will not be eligible to be deputed for
higher studies for a period of six years from the
date of absorption."

In the same vein, sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Absorption

Rules, 2009 reads as follows:

"(2) The Contract Doctors who are absorbed under
these rules, shall from the date of absorption, work
atleast for the period of six years in rural areas and
shall not be eligible for deputation for higher
studies during that period."

10. When the matters stood thus, the State Government by

notifications dated 30.12.2011 published the Draft

Amendment Rules to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and

2009. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules were sought to

be amended. Further, the amendments were to take effect

from 30.12.2011. Objections were invited to the said Draft

Rules. Thereafter, on 21.02.2011, the Amendment Rules

were notified. As per the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules, 2006, in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the following words

were omitted viz., "and shall not be deputed for higher studies

during that period." In Absorption Rules, 2007, in sub-rule

(2) of Rule 3, the following words were omitted viz., "they will
not be eligible to be deputed for higher studies for a period of

six years from the date of absorption." Similarly, in Absorption

Rules, 2009, the amendment was omission of the following

words viz., "and shall not be deputed for higher studies during

that period."

11. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the Absorption Rules provided

that the contract doctors on being absorbed, had to work

atleast for a period of six years in rural areas and were

ineligible for deputation for higher studies during that period.

In fact, under the Absorption Rules of 2006 and 2007, six

years of rural service was to be the first six years after

absorption. In the 2009 Rules, however, the absorbed

doctors had to work atleast for six years in rural areas. But

in all the three sets of Absorption Rules, the absorbed doctors

who were working in rural areas were not to be deputed for

higher studies during that period. By virtue of amendments

made to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009 by way

of omission in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the embargo on the

absorbed doctors to be deputed for higher studies for an

initial period of six years from the date of absorption, during
which period the absorbed doctors were to serve in rural

areas was lifted. Therefore, the controversy is as to whether

the absorbed doctors under the Absorption Rules have now

become eligible for deputation for higher studies.

12. At this stage itself, it is relevant to refer to the Rules

Regulating Deputation of or Grant of Study Leave to

Government Servants for Prosecution of Special Course of

Study consisting of Higher Studies or Specialised Training

within India (hereinafter referred to as 'Deputation Rules' for

the sake of convenience) on which reliance has been placed

by the appellants. These Rules are contained in Appendix-II-

A to Rule 61 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958

(hereinafter referred to as 'KCSR' for the sake of brevity) have

been deemed to be enacted as part of the
Karnataka State

Civil Services Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the 'the

Act' for the sake of brevity) by virtue of
Section 3(3)(iii)
of the

said Act. The said Act is in force with effect from 30.05.1990.

Rule 61 reads as follows:

"61. (1)(a) The State Government may, with due
regard to the exigencies of public service, depute or
grant study leave to a Government servant for
prosecution of a special course of study consisting
of higher studies or specialised training in
professional or technical subjects having a direct
and close connection with the sphere of his duty.

(b) The State government may also grant study
leave to a Government servant for prosecution of
studies which may not be closely or directly
connected with his work but which are capable of
widening his mind in a manner likely to improve his
abilities as a civil servant and to equip him better to
collaborate with those employed in the other
branches of public service.

(2) A Government servant who is deputed or
granted study leave for higher studies or
specialised training shall not be entitled to claim
any monetary benefit or seniority by virtue of the
higher qualification or training acquired.

(3) The deputation or grant of study leave to a
Government servant for prosecution of higher
studies or specialised training shall be regulated in
accordance with the rules contained in Appendix II-

A."
Rules 1, 4 and 5 of Appendix-II-A the Deputation Rules,

which are relevant for the purpose of the present case read as

follows:

"APPENDIX II-A

Rules regulating deputation of or grant of
study leave to Government servants for
prosecution of special course of study
consisting of higher studies or specialised
training within India

1. The Government may depute a Government
servant, who has rendered not less than five years
as regular service and is below [48] years of age,
for a special course of study, consisting of higher
studies of specialised training in a professional or
technical subject having a direct and close
connection with the sphere of his duty at a
recognised institution within the State or outside
the State but within India. The restriction in regard
to length of service and age will not apply to
deputation of Government servants for foundation
refresher courses of training or any in-service
training of short-term duration not exceeding three
months.

x x x

4. the number of Government servants to be
deputed at any point of time for higher studies or
specialised training shall be kept at the minimum,
not exceeding 5% of the sanctioned permanent
strength of the concerned cadre.

5. The selection of a candidate for higher studies or
specialised training shall be made strictly on the
basis of seniority except for reasons to be recorded
in writing."

13. The State Government by order dated 29.01.2010 has

ordered that the contractual service rendered in the past

under the contractual appointment by those doctors working

as General Duty Medical Officers in the Health and Family

Welfare Department should be taken into consideration only

for in-service deputation to Post-graduate studies. The

operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.HFW 342 HSH 2008,
BASNGALORE, DATED: 29.1.2010

In the background of the circumstances
detailed in the preamble, it is hereby ordered that
the contractual service rendered in the past under
contractual appointment by those presently
working as General Duty Medical Officers/Dental
Health Officers in the Health and Family Welfare
Department be taken into consideration only for in-
service deputation to post graduate studies.
Further, it is hereby ordered that subject to
condition that it would be certified that there was
no break in service between these two services, the
service rendered by some Medical Officers who
were appointed under rural weightage quota and
who were subsequently continued under
contractual basis under rural weightage and under
contract basis be taken into consideration while
deputing for post graduate studies under in-service
quota. It is ordered that there is no provision to
consider these contractual service and service
rendered under the rural weightage quota for any
other service matters.

By orders and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
Sd/-

(I. HEMNATH)
Under Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare Department
(Service-I)"

14. The other set of Act and Rules, which call for our

consideration is, the
Karnataka Educational Institutions

(Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred

to as 'the Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act' for the sake of

brevity) which regulates admission to educational institutions

imparting education in Medicine and Dental Sciences and to

curb and prohibit the collection of capitation fee for

admission to such educational institutions. The said Act was

published on 09.08.1984 in the Karnataka Gazette

Extraordinary.
Section 4
regulates admission to educational
institutions. Section 12 states that the provisions of the Act

have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any

other law for the time being in force. Section 14 empowers

the State Government to make Rules for carrying out all or

any of the purposes of the Act. The Karnataka Conduct of

Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post-Graduate

Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006

(hereinafter referred to as PGET Rules, 2006) have been

enacted under Section 14 of the Prohibition of Captitation Fee

Act.
Section 2
is the definition clause. The relevant clauses

read as follows:

"2. Definitions:- In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires-

(c) "Entrance Test" means the Entrance Test
referred to in Rule 3 for selection of candidates for
admission to Government Seats in Post-Graduate
Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma courses;

x x x

(g) "In-service candidates" means persons
belonging to the Health and Family Welfare
Services, the Karnataka Medical Education Services
of the State Civil Services, Employees State
Insurance (Medical) Services, Mahanagara Palike
Services, Boards and Corporations Services and
Institutions which are granted autonomous status
including the persons deputed from such services to
any other foreign services;

(h) "Merit" means the order of merit determined on

the basis of marks secured in the Entrance Test;"

Rule 3 deals with Entrance Test, Rule 4 speaks of

eligibility, while Rule 10 deals with the procedure for selection

of in-service candidates for admission to Post-graduate

Medical and Dental courses. The same read as follows:

"3. Entrance Test:- (1) For the purpose of selection
of candidates and determination of merit, an
Entrance Test shall be conducted by the Entrance
Test Committee for the candidates seeking
admission to the Post-Graduate degree and
Diploma courses in Medical Sciences and Post-
Graduate degree in Dental Sciences including the
seats reserved for in-service candidates.

(2) In-service candidate, who has completed three
years of regular service and successfully completed
the probationary period as on the last date of
receipt of applications for the Entrance Test, shall
apply through, the proper channel only through
concerned Head of the Department i.e., Director of
Medical Education/Director of Health and Family
Welfare Services/Director, ESI/Heads of
Autonomous Institutions/Heads of Boards and
Corporations, as the case may be.

4. Eligibility:- (1) A candidate who fulfill the
following criteria shall be eligible to appear for the
Entrance Test, namely:-

(a) He is a citizen of India

(b) He has studied and passed in the courses
leading to the award of MBBS/BDS Degrees in
colleges recognised by Medical Council of
India/Dental Council of India Government of India
established by law and located in Karnataka State;
or

(c) Candidate must be of Karnataka origin who has
studied MBBS/BDS degrees in colleges outside
Karnataka recognised by Medical Council of
India/Dental Council of India and Government of
India and affiliated to any University established
by law in India.

x x x

10. Procedure for Selection of In-service

Candidates for Admission to Post-graduate
Medical and Dental Courses:- The procedure for
selection of in-service candidates for admission to
Post-graduate Degree and Diploma in Medical and
Dental courses is as follows:-

(1) No in-service candidates shall be eligible for
admission under these rules;

(a) unless he has put in not less than three
years of regular service;

(b) unless he has satisfactorily completed the
prescribed period of probation.

(2) No in-service candidate shall be eligible for
admission to Post-graduate degree and Diploma
courses in any subject other than the Speciality in
which he is working.

(3) An in-service candidate who is already holding
a Post-graduate degree in any speciality shall not
be eligible for admission in any other Post-graduate
degree or Diploma.

(4) An in-service candidate who is already holding
a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality, through
Government deputation, shall be eligible for
admission to Post-graduate degree courses in the
same speciality and shall not be eligible for any
other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses;
(5) An in-service candidate who is studying in any
Post-graduate degree or Diploma course shall not
be eligible for admission under these rules;
(6) No candidate who is above forty-eight years of
age as on the last date fixed for receipt of
application shall be eligible for admission."

Rules 11 and 12 pertain to distribution of seats

and reservation of seats for in-service candidates. The

same read as follows:

"11. Distribution of seats:- (1) Out of total
number of Government seats, the Government shall
notify the number of seats to be reserved for in-
service candidates.

(2) Any seats reserved for in-service candidates
which remain unfilled for want of eligible
candidates or otherwise shall be added to the non-

in-service quota seats.

12. Reservation of seats for in-service
candidates:- Out of the total number of seats
available for in-service candidates:-

(a) fifteen per cent of seats shall be reserved for
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes;

(b) three per cent shall be reserved for persons
belonging to the Scheduled Tribes."
15. By a corrigendum issued on 10.01.2007, sub-rule (2) of

Rule 3 has been amended. The corrigendum reads as

follows:

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.HFW 399 MPS 2005 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Bangalore, dated 10-01-2007

CORIGENDUM
In the Government Notification No.HFW 399 MPS 2005,
dated 08-12-2006 under Rule 3(2) the word "regular",
appearing in the 1st line shall and shall always be deemed to
have been deleted and after the word 'service' appearing in
the same line, the following words shall be inserted and read
further.

"in the concerned department including candidates
appointed under the Rural Weightage Category."

By Order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka
Sd/-

(MAAZ AHMED SHARIFF)
Joint Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
(Medical Education)"

15. Rule 5A was inserted by notification dated 18.01.2011.

The said Rule reads as follows:
"3. Amendment of Rule 5:- After rule 5 the said
rules, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"5A. Merit list of in-service candidates:- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
while preparing the merit list of candidates in
respect of in-service candidates working under the
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services,
who has secured minimum qualifying marks, a
weightage of four marks for each completed year of
service beyond five years of service shall be added
to the marks secured in the Entrance Test subject to
a maximum of thirty marks;

Provided that for each completed year of rural
service beyond five years of service, a weightage of
eight marks shall be added to the marks secured in
the Entrance Test in lieu of four marks subject to a
maximum of thirty marks. No weightage shall be
added for the service rendered below five years.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, "rural
service" means the service rendered in areas other
than the areas falling within the limits of municipal
corporation, city municipal council, town
municipality, town panchayat established under
the
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
or
the
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964
as the case
may be and upto such distance from these limits as
may be notified by the State Government as urban
area and includes the service rendered in rural
areas under the contract period and rural service
rendered under the rural weightage selection.

(2) The in-service candidates working under the
Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services
shall not be eligible for Postgraduation or Diploma
courses in the disciplines which are not required in
the hospitals or institutions coming under the
purview of the Director of Health and Family
Welfare Services."

The said Rule was withdrawn by notification dated

07.03.2011. However, the said Rule was revived with effect

from 07.04.2011.

Relevant Precedents:

16. At this stage itself, it would be relevant to refer to some

of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court having

a bearing on the controversy in issue so that when the

contentions of the respective parties are epitomized, the

reference to the said precedents could be easily

comprehended.
17. In K.Duraiswamy V/s. State of T.N. (2001)2 SCC 538)

the Apex Court has held that "classification could be made as

"service quota" and "open quota", for in-service candidates

and other candidates respectively, confining the respective

class/cadre candidates to the respective percentages

earmarked for the two of them exclusively.

The Court further held as follows:

(i) The Government possesses the right and
authority to decide from what sources the
admissions in educational institutions or to
particular disciplines and courses therein have to
be made and that too in what proportion;

x x x

(ii) that such exclusive allocation and stipulation of
a definite quota or number of seats between in-

service and non-service or private candidates
provided two separate channels of entry and a
candidate belonging to one exclusive quota cannot
claim to steal a march into another exclusive quota
by advancing a claim based on merit. Inter se merit
of the candidates in each quote shall be determined
based on the merit performance of the candidates
belonging to that quota;"

18. In the case of State of M.P. -V/s- Gopal D.Tirthani

(2003)7 SCC 83) (Gopal Thirthani) the Apex Court ruled on

the significance of the eligibility test and held as follows:

"25. The eligibility test, called the entrance test or
the Pre-PG test, is conducted with dual purposes.
Firstly, it is held with the object of assessing the
knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate
whether he would be able to prosecute post-
graduate studies if allowed an opportunity of doing
so; secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the
merit inter se of the candidates which is of vital
significance at the counselling when it comes to
allotting the successful candidates to different
disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some
disciplines are considered to be more creamy and
are more coveted than the others.

26. The Medical Council of India, for the present,
insists, through its Regulations, on a common
Entrance Test being conducted whereat the
minimum qualifying marks would be 50%."
19. As to whether weightage could be given to doctors for

their having rendered specified number of years of service in

rural or tribal areas, it has been observed that in-service

doctors had been told in advance and knowing that by

rendering service in rural/tribal areas, they can capture

better prospects of earning higher professional qualifications

and consequently eligibility for promotion, acts as a

motivating factor and provides incentive to young in-service

doctors to opt for service in rural/tribal areas. Therefore,

assigning weightage to rural service rendered as Assistant

Surgeons and carving out a classification in favour of women

candidates conferring them with eligibility for seeking

admission in post-graduate courses by rendering three years'

consecutive service in rural areas satisfy the twin tests of

Article 14
of the Constitution. Thus, the Apex Court held that

it is permissible to assign a reasonable weightage to services

rendered in rural/tribal areas by the in-service candidates for

the purpose of determining interse merit within the class of

in-service candidates who have qualified in the pre-PG test by

securing the minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by the

Medical Council of India.
20. With regard to the academic year 2008-09, certain in-

service candidates in the State (Dr. Ranganath and others)

questioned the action of the State in not allowing them to

appear for counseling as per a single merit list, in terms of

Rule 2(h) of the PGET Rules 2006 in W.P.Nos.9397-

9399/2009. By an order dated 08.04.2009 issued by the

State Government, three separate merit lists were prepared

based on the length of service of the in-service candidates i.e.,

preference to be given to the first slab (i.e., those who had

completed five years of regular service), then to the second

slab (i.e., those who had completed four years of service) and

then to the third slab (i.e., those who had completed three

years of service). The said order was issued by the State

Government on 08.04.2009 purportedly under Rule 61(1)(a)

read with Appendix-II-A of the KCSR. A learned Single Judge

of this court by order dated 27.07.2009 sought to

harmoniously interpret Rule 61 read with Appendix II-A of the

KCSR and PGET Rules, 2006 and held as follows:

"8. As aforementioned, in these matters, Rules of
2006 and Rule 61 r/w. Appendix II-A of the KCSRs
operate simultaneously in such matters. Therefore,
they will have to be harmoniously construed. One
cannot be ignored in preference to the other. The
object of the State appears to give preference to the
seniors in service who have passed the Common
Entrance Test examination along with the juniors.
By this process, juniors will also not get effected,
inasmuch as, they may get seat under in-service
quota in the coming years. Such a procedure will
not violate the principles of law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of State of Machya Pradesh -
Vs- Gopal D.Thirthani (cited supra), inasmuch as,
the seniors in-service also will have to get through
the entrance examination for getting the Post-
graduate seat.

9. In view of the above, this court does not find any
error in the Government Order dated 8.4.2009
giving preference to the candidates who have
completed 5 years of service in the department. As
aforementioned, Rules of 2006 will have to be read
harmoniously with Rule 61(1) r/w. Appendix II-A of
the KCSRs. Accordingly, the State Government is
justified in issuing the Government Order dated
8.4.2009.
10. In the matter on hand, however, the petitioners
are selected and are already admitted to the Post-
graduation courses as in-service candidates by
virtue of the interim order granted by this Court.
They are continuing their course of study. It is also
brought to the notice of the court by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the petitioners herein have
also completed 5 years of service in the department
by now. Respondents 6 to 17 are also admitted to
Post-graduation course as in-service candidates. In
view of the above, this court does not propose to
disturb the academic career of the petitioners as
well as respondents 6 to 17, more so, when the
period prescribed for counseling is already over.
Accordingly, the following order is made:

The prayers as sought for in the writ petitions
cannot be granted.

The Government Order dated 8.4.2009 bearing
No.Aakuka 86 HSH 2009, is declared valid.
However, the petitioners who are already selected
and admitted to the Post-graduation course shall
not be disturbed in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case.
Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with the
said observations."

21. As far as the academic year 2011-2012 is concerned,

W.P.No.15539/2011 was filed assailing the provisional merit

list, whereby, according to the petitioners therein, 34

candidates who were working on contract basis and whose

services were absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 and

Absorption Rules 2007 and who had not completed six years

of regular service and were, therefore, ineligible to apply for

PGET-2011 under in-service quota had found a place in the

provisional merit list. By an interim order dated 01.05.2011,

a learned Single Judge held that the 34 candidates who had

been absorbed under the aforesaid two Rules had not

completed six years from the date of their Absorption and

prima facie, were ineligible to apply for PGET-2011 under in-

service quota. Rejecting the contention of the private

respondents therein, the learned Single Judge further

observed as follows:

"It is clear that the aforesaid 34 candidates, who
are absorbed under the aforesaid two Rules had
not completed six years from the date of their
absorption. Therefore, prima facie, I am of the view
that they were ineligible to apply for PGET-2011
under in-service quota. There is no merit in the
contention of the private respondents that there is
no bar for them to appear for the examination and
the only bar is for deputing them for higher studies.

The very object of appearing in the PGET
examination, 2011 and counseling them is to
depute them for higher studies. There is no point in
selecting them and not deputing them for higher
studies. Therefore, inclusion of respondent Nos.5 to
36 in the final list of in-service candidates for PG
Degree/Diploma selection for the year 2011
published by the respondents vide Annexure J is
contrary to law. Their names should not have been
cleared by the third respondent for their
appearance in the PGET-2011 examination until
they complete six years of service from the date of
absorption."

22. Accordingly, a direction was given to the respondent-

authorities to re-do the final merit list of in-service candidates

by omitting the 34 ineligible candidates. The said order was

assailed in W.A.Nos.4457-4461/2011 and connected matters.

By order dated 07.06.2011, the writ appeals were dismissed.
Special Leave Petitions were filed against the order of the

Division Bench. Initially the Apex Court by order dated

22.06.2011 issued an order of status quo, but by order dated

01.08.2011, the same was vacated and a direction was also

given to give effect to the order of the High Court subject to

final decision in the Special Leave Petition which we are told

is pending.

23. What is significant as far as the academic year 2012-13

is concerned is the controversy with regard to the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, whereby

there is a omission of the embargo with regard to prosecuting

Post-graduate studies for a period of six years after the date

of absorption. Therefore, one of the considerations that

would have to be made is as to the binding effect of the orders

dated 07.06.2011 of the Division Bench of this Court

affirming the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated

01.05.2011.

24. One other aspect that has to be stated at this stage

itself is that the appellants in W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012,
except appellant Nos. 12 and 14, were appointed by way of

direct recruitment in the years 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Appellant Nos.12 and 14 were appointed under the

Absorption Rules, 2003. They have placed reliance on

notification dated 18.12.2007, 08.02.2008 and 09.01.2009

whereby certain doctors were appointed by direct recruitment

with a condition that every candidate so appointed had to

compulsorily serve atleast for six years in rural areas.

25. That apart, by government Order dated 29.012010, it

was ordered that the contractual service rendered in the past

under contractual appointment by those doctors working

under the Department of Health and Family Welfare be taken

into consideration only for in-service candidates to Post-

graduate studies. The contractual service was not to be

considered for any other service condition. The said

Government Order was questioned by certain doctors in

W.P.Nos.8544-8550/2010 and connected matters, which

were dismissed by order dated 26.04.2010.
26. Against the aforesaid order, W.A.Nos.1922-1923/2010

and connected matters were filed. A Division Bench of this

court, by order dated 31.05.2010 allowed the appeals in part.

Against the said order, Special Leave Petitions were filed

before the Apex Court which initially passed an order

21.06.2010, stating that the admission list shall not be

finalised until the next date of hearing. Thereafter, by order

dated 28.06.2010, the operation of the order of the Division

Bench was stayed until further orders. The Special Leave

Petitions are pending adjudication before the Apex Court.

27. The recent order of the Apex Court in the case of Priya

Gupta -V/s- State of Chattisgarh, dated 08.05.2012

(C.A.No.4318/2012) has also been brought to our notice with

regard to compliance of admissions in terms of the prescribed

time schedule. In the said decision, the Apex Court has

observed that the High Court should ensure strict adherence

to the prescribed time schedule, process of selection and to

the rule on merit. Further, that the High Court may, except

in exceptional cases, should consider it appropriate to decline

interim orders and hear the main petitions finally subject to
the convenience of the court.

Contentions and submissions:

28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

29. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in

Writ Appeal Nos.2978-86/2012 & 2987-96/2012 contended

that these appellants were not parties to the writ petitions.

However, they are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single

Judge in holding that the PGET Rules 2006 prevail over the

Deputation Rules made under the KCSR, thereby permitting

those in-service doctors who are regularised in the year 2007

as well as 2009 to be considered for admission to Post-

graduate Courses. That these appellants were absorbed

under the Absorption Rules of 2006. In view of the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007

and 2009, the in-service doctors are governed by the KCSR

pertaining to deputation. Therefore, the in-service doctors

who were absorbed in the year 2007 and 2009 were not

eligible to take the Entrance Test under the PGET Rules 2006

as they have not completed five years of regular service.
Similarly, the directly recruited in-service doctors who have

not completed five years of regular service were not entitled to

take the Entrance Test. That Rule 61 read with Appendix-IIA

of the KCSR pertain to regulating deputation of or grant of

study leave to Government Servants for prosecution of special

course of study consisting of special study or specialised

training within India. The said Rules have the force of the

Act, having regard to
Section 3(1)(b)
read with
Section 3 (3)(iii)

of the Act, that the said Act prevails over all other laws as it

has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in

any other law with respect of matters for which provision is

made in the Act or for which Rules have been made under the

Act. Therefore, when once the amendments were made by

virtue of notification dated 21.02.2012, omitting the embargo

placed on the contract doctors who were regularised under

the Absorption Rules from being considered for Post-graduate

courses, the Deputation Rules in terms of the KCSR have

come into operation.

30. It was emphasised that though the contract doctors

were absorbed into service, they were regularised by way of
Absorption Rules with an embargo that they shall not be

eligible for higher studies within a period of six years from the

date of regularisation. Once the said embargo is omitted in

the Absorption Rules, by virtue of the amendment notified on

21.02.2012, though with retrospective effect from 30.12.2011,

Rule 61 of the KCSR at once became applicable to the

contract doctors who are absorbed into regular service. Rule

1 to Appendix-IIA to Rule 61 of the KCSR (Deputation Rules)

categorically states that a person who has not rendered less

than five years regular service or who is not below 48 years of

age would not be eligible for deputation for higher studies.

31. Therefore, having regard to Rule 61 of KCSR and

keeping in mind left over seats in in-service quota, the State

Government had devised an order of priority on the basis of

three merit lists based on the number of years of regular

service completed by in-service doctors. The said order of

priority was upheld by this Court in the case of

Dr.N.Ranganath and others. According to these appellants,

the KCSR are applicable to all in-service doctors and the

PGET Rules 2006 are only procedural in nature and do not
operate in the field of deputation, which is a condition of

service. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the PGET

Rules 2006 only speak of eligibility for taking the exam.

Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006 cannot over-ride the

provisions of the Deputation Rules. That infact, as a result of

the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, there has been

uniformity brought about between the directly recruited and

absorbed doctors. Moreover, the PGET Rules 2006 are made

under the Capitation Fee Act, which has nothing to do with

the deputation or service conditions of the in-service doctors.

Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006 cannot have an over-riding

effect over the Deputation Rules. Reference was also made to

an interim order of the learned Single Judge dated

01.05.2011 in W.P.No.15539/2011 wherein it has been

categorically held that these in-service doctors who have not

completed six years of service from the date of absorption,

would not be entitled to appear for PGET examination. That

the said order dated 01.05.2011, has been upheld by a

Division Bench of this Court and in the Special Leave Petition

preferred against the said order, the Supreme Court has

vacated the earlier order of status-quo granted on
22.06.2011. Consequently, the order of this court has to be

given effect to subject to the final decision in SLP. It was,

therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge in these

cases was not right in holding that the PGET Rules 2006

prevail over the rules pertaining to deputation with regard to

Post-graduate studies.

32. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in

W.A.Nos.3020/2012 contended that except appellant Nos.4,

9, 13 and 14, the other appellants are doctors who were

appointed by direct recruitment. During the period 1997 to

2003, the aforesaid four appellants were initially appointed on

contract basis, but they were subsequently absorbed, but

there was no condition or an embargo on deputation in their

Absorption Rules. That pursuant to the decision of the

Supreme Court in Gopal Thirthani's case, PGET Rules 2003

were framed and later PGET Rules 2006 have been re-framed.

That as far as the present admissions are concerned, the last

date for receipt of applications was 31.12.2011. The common

Entrance Test was held on 29.02.2012. That these appellants

are aggrieved by the retrospective operation given to the
amendments made to the Absorption Rules dated 21.02.2012,

with effect from 31.12.2011. The appellants are also

aggrieved by the grant of eight marks as weightage to those

doctors who have served in the rural areas in terms of Rule

5A of the PGET Rules 2006. That by interim order dated

15.05.2012 granted by this Court, the amendments made to

the Absorption Rules were stayed. As a consequence, the

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 were

included in the merit list. But the doctors absorbed in the

subsequent rules were excluded. As a result, the doctors

absorbed in the year 2007 and 2009 have challenged the

merit list. But since the appellants' challenge to the amended

Absorption Rules has remained ineffective on account of

learned Single Judge holding that the Absorption Rules

cannot be challenged in a writ petition filed before the High

Court, but could only be challenged before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal, which has the jurisdiction to deal

with service matters of Government Servants, the eligibility of

the batch of absorbed doctors in the year 2007 and 2009 to

take up the Entrance Test has been recognised by the learned

Single Judge, contrary to the provisions of Rule 61 read with
Appendix-IIA of the KCSR. As far as the Writ Petitions filed

by direct recruits are concerned, their exclusion from the

merit list has been held to be bad in law, since they had also

challenged the condition in the appointment order that they

should work for a period of five years in rural areas.

33. On the basis of the above factual matrix, learned Senior

Counsel contended that the retrospective effect given to the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules is arbitrary,

contrary to the spirit of the rules of absorption and

unreasonable and hence, violative of
Articles 14
and
of the

Constitution of India. That the amendment made to the

Absorption Rules takes away the vested rights which have

accrued in favour of the direct recruits and therefore, the said

amendments should be struck down or in the alternative at

least be read down by holding that they do not take away the

right of the direct recruits who are bound by the Deputation

Rules (Rule 61 read with Annexure-IIA of the KCSR) for this

academic year and that they are prospective in nature. That

the amendment to the Absorption Rules made after the

commencement of the proceedings of selection for admission
to the Post-graduate courses has been made in order to

favour the absorbed doctors and so as to make them eligible

when initially under the rules of absorption they were

ineligible. That in terms of the Absorption Rules, the

absorbed doctors became regular employees from the date of

absorption and an additional condition of absorption was

imposed on the absorbed doctors inasmuch as they were

barred from proceeding for higher studies during their initial

period of service in the rural areas. Also under the terms of

the Absorption Rules, the previous service of the contract

doctors cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. That

the absorbed doctors accepted these conditions and were

absorbed into regular service on the basis of the Absorption

Rules. That as on the last date fixed for receipt of

applications for taking the Entrance Test for Post-graduation

courses, the absorbed doctors were ineligible to apply for the

Entrance Test as the notification for making the amendment

to the Absorption Rules had been published only on

21.02.2012. That the object of the retrospective amendment

made to the Absorption Rules has been, to favour the

absorbed doctors to the detriment of the directly recruited
doctors. It was contended that pursuant to the amendment

made to Absorption Rules all in-service doctors belong to one

class, irrespective of whether they are direct recruits or

contract doctors absorbed into service and thereby

regularised. In respect of both category of doctors, now it is

only the Deputation Rules made under the KCSR which are

applicable and not the PGET Rules 2006 in the matter of

deputation of the doctors for Post-graduate courses is

concerned. Therefore, a vested right, which had accrued to

the directly recruited doctors owing to their seniority in

service has been taken away by the amendments made to the

Absorption Rules particularly, after the last date for

submitting the application has lapsed. Therefore, it was

preferred that the retrospective amendment to the Absorption

Rules is illegal or at any rate they have to be read down to

have only a prospective operation and cannot be applied to

the present admissions.

34. Learned Senior Counsel who has appeared for the

appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.3004-3018/2012 contended

that the grant of eight marks by way of weightage to
candidates who have served beyond five years in the rural

areas on completion of each year of service is unreasonable.

No doubt, in Gopal Thirthani, the Apex Court has held that

weightage for rural service is permissible, but it should be

reasonable. That proviso to Rule 5A is contrary to the dictum

in Gopal Thirthani. That as far as State of Karnataka is

concerned, service in rural areas for doctors is not

compulsory, but is a matter of chance. Therefore, the proviso

to Rule 5A of the PGET Rules 2006 are unreasonable and

legally invalid.

35. It was also brought to our notice that pursuant to the

dictum in Gopal Thirthani and in terms of
Regulation 9
of the

Post-graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as 'the PGME Regulations'), the PGET

Rules 2006 were enacted including in-service candidates in

the State of Karnataka. The said Rules are only procedural in

nature and cannot have an over-riding effect on the

Deputation Rules made under the KCSR. That ultimately,

there has to be a harmonious interpretation of the KCSR and

PGET Rules 2006 and if that is not possible, then the
Deputation Rules would apply. Also the doctors who qualify

for the Post-graduate course are called specialists, whereas it

is only general duty doctors who are posted in rural areas. As

a result of the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, the

absorbed doctors who qualify as Post-graduate doctors would

not complete their rural service, whereas doctors appointed

by direct recruitment have to put in atleast five years of rural

service which is an aspect of discrimination against the

directly recruited doctors. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore,

summarised his contentions by saying that as a result of the

weightage given to doctors who have served in the rural areas,

merit has been redefined, which is contrary to the merit

secured by the candidates in the Entrance Test. Further, as

a result of the amendment made to the Absorption Rules, the

insistence on rural service for the absorbed doctors has been

negated.

36. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

General contended that there are two classes of in-service

doctors i.e., i) doctors appointed by direct recruitment and ii)

doctors appointed on contract basis and thereafter absorbed
under the respective Absorption Rules. That the Absorption

Rules are special rules regularising the services of contract

doctors. That Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules made a

condition of compulsory rural service for an initial period of

six years pursuant to absorption, during which period the

absorbed doctors were not permitted to seek deputation for

higher studies. However, such an embargo was not placed on

the directly recruited doctors. In order to remove the

discrimination between the two categories of in-service

candidates that amendments were brought about to the

Absorption Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 with retrospective

effect from 30.12.2011. The Draft Rules were published on

30.12.2011 and after inviting objections, the amended rules

were notified. As a result, the embargo placed on the

absorbed doctors was removed and discrimination has been

eliminated.

37. It was further contended that insofar as Post-graduate

courses in medical and dental sciences are concerned, it is

the PGET Rules, 2006 that would apply in the matter of

admission to such courses. That the Deputation Rules (Rule
61 read with Appendix-IIA of the KCSR) which are general

rules applicable to all Government Servants, but as far as

Post-Graduate medical and dental courses are concerned, it

is only the PGET Rules, 2006 which are applicable. These

Rules are framed pursuant to the direction of the Medical

council of India as well as keeping in mind the Supreme

Court dicta in various judgments for determining merit.

Therefore, the general rules for deputation framed under the

KCSR would have to be yield to the special rules in the matter

of admission to Post-graduate medical and dental courses.

That Rule 2(g) of the PGET Rules, 2006 defines in-service

candidates and in terms of the said definition doctors in

Government service who are appointed by direct recruitment

or regularised under the Absorption Rules are treated at par

as there can be no discrimination between the doctors

appointed from the said two sources once the contract

doctors are regularised by the State Government. Therefore,

it was contended that where admission to Post-graduate

medical or dental courses are concerned under the PGET

Rules, 2006 the KCSR are not applicable. On the other hand,

the PGET Rules 2006 are equally applicable to both directly
recruited doctors as well as absorbed doctors. The

amendments made to the 2006, 2007 and 2009 Rules is with

the object to bring it in consonance with the PGET Rules

2006. It is under those circumstances, the amendments have

been made to Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules giving it a

retrospective effect so that the Rules could be applicable for

the admission made in the current academic year. There is

no malafides alleged against the State Government as no

particular group of doctors have been favoured. On the other

hand, to remove discrimination within the in-service

candidates, the amendments were made to the rules of

absorption. The directly recruited doctors have no vested

right to seek admission to the Post-graduate courses, except

by way of merit obtained in the Entrance Test. The directly

recruited doctors cannot, therefore, challenge the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules. The object and purpose of the

amendment is to bring about a level playing field between the

doctors, so that merit is the foremost consideration for

admission to Post-graduate courses subject to fulfilling other

conditions in the PGET Rules of 2006.
38. It was also contended that there is no substance in the

challenge made to the Amendment Rules as the said

amendments do not violate the Fundamental Rights of the

petitioner nor its parent Act. Learned Addl. Advocate General,

therefore, contended that merit being the most important

criterion for admission to Post-graduate medical and dental

courses, PGET Rules 2006 would be applicable and they have

an over-riding effect on any other Rules concerning

deputation. He also justified the amendment made to Rule

5A of the PGET Rules 2006 with effect from 18.01.2011,

which is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Gopal Thirthani and that the challenge made to the

said Rules is without any merit, as the directly recruited

doctors are eligible for such a weightage as also the absorbed

doctors.

39. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents

in W.A.Nos.2978-2986/2012 and connected matters at the

outset stated that the challenge made to the amendment of

the Absorption Rules is without substance. That these

respondents have the merit and are eligible to be admitted for
the Post-graduate courses. On the other hand, those who are

less meritorious have challenged the Amendment Rules. That

in the petitions filed by certain other doctors, there was an

interim order of stay granted to the Amendment Rules on

15.05.2012. As a consequence, the State Government

prepared a fresh merit list excluding these respondents by

issuance of Circular dated 16.05.2012. Therefore, the latter

were constrained to file writ petitions seeking their inclusion

in the merit list having regard to their eligibility under the

PGET Rules 2006. It was also explained that the State

Government had not appointed any doctor since the year

1999 by way of direct recruitment. On the other hand,

doctors were appointed on contract basis and since these

doctors had served for considerably long time and they had

sought for regularisation of their services, the Absorption

Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009 were framed. However,

Absorption Rules had an additional condition inasmuch as in

their initial period of service after absorption, the doctors had

to work in rural areas for a period of six years and during the

said period they were not eligible for deputation for higher

studies. The State Government felt that such a condition
would be to the disadvantage of the absorbed doctors having

regard to the fact that they have served for long number of

years and therefore, the said embargo was omitted pursuant

to the amendments made to the said rules of absorption.

That the amendment to the Absorption Rules are made

pursuant to Rule 8 of the Act which enables a rule having a

retrospective effect and therefore, the amendment of the

Absorption Rules has not in any way affected the admission

process for the current academic year since the Amendment

Rules are effective from 30.12.2011, whereas the last date for

filing of applications for the admission of Post-graduate was

31.12.2011.

40. It was also pointed out that Rule 5 of the Absorption

Rules have an over-riding effect as they are special rules of

appointment and therefore, the Rules of Deputation made

under Rule 61 of the KCSR read with Appendix-IIA do not

apply to the absorbed doctors. It was also contended that the

appellants had participated in the admission process and

they are estopped from challenging the criterion for selection.

It was also contended that the challenge to the Absorption
Rules could only be made before the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal and not before the High Court. It

was further contended that the PGET Rules 2006 are special

rules for admission for medical and dental courses and they

have an over-riding effect on Deputation Rules enacted under

the Act.

41. The respondents in W.A.Nos.3004-3018/2012 and

3020-3034/2012 through their counsel contended that the

Government Order dated 29.01.2010 specifically recognises

that the period of contract service must be recognised for the

purpose of deputation. Therefore, even if it is held that PGET

Rules 2006 do not over-ride the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR, having regard to the Government Order

dated 29.01.2010, the contract doctors were absorbed into

service are eligible to be deputed for higher studies. It was

also contended that the appellants cannot challenge the grant

of weightage under Rule 5A of the PGET Rules 2006 as they

are also beneficiaries of the weightage of marks given to them

and therefore, having participated in the admission process,

they are estopped from challenging the same.
42. Learned counsel for the private respondents stated that

learned Single Judge by interim order dated 15.05.2012

enabled the State Government to alter the merit list mid-way

pursuant to the interim order of stay granted by this Court in

May, 2012. This has led to these doctors file writ petitions.

43. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.7, 8 and 16,in W.A.Nos.3004-18/2012 at the outset

stated that the appellants cannot maintain a challenge to the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules as the Karnataka

Administrative Tribunal is the forum to challenge a service

rule. That the learned Single Judge was right in holding that

the contract doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules of

2006 have the right to be deputed for Post-graduate courses.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Rule 61 of the KCSR

is applicable, the eligibility for deputation is to be considered

after the merit list is published under the PGET Rules 2006

and that in the instant case the doctors absorbed under the

Rules 2006 have the eligibility to be admitted to the Post-

graduate courses. Therefore, the contention of some of the
appellants that the respondent-doctors had no eligibility even

to take the Entrance Test is incorrect as they had not

completed five years of regular service as required under the

Deputation Rules. It was also contended that the weightage

under Rule 5A has to be given having regard to the period of

contract service rendered by the absorbed doctors and the

said Rule cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary

since it is made in consonance with the dictum of the

Supreme Court and that only thirty marks maximum could

be awarded. Concluding the said contentions, learned Senior

Counsel stated that the doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules 2006, were eligible to be admitted for Post-

graduate medical courses on the basis of their merit. It was

also pointed out that after absorption of the contract doctors,

a common seniority list is prepared and all the doctors

appointed by direct recruitment or by regularisation form one

class and that there can be no discrimination within the said

class of doctors. That the doctors appointed under direct

recruitment have no vested rights vis-à-vis the absorbed

doctors and they have no reason to challenge the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules.
44. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the

decisions of the Apex Court in Mridhul Dhar -V/s- Union of

India (2005) 2 SCC 65) and two other decisions and it was

submitted that merit list prepared by the State Government

cannot be altered at this point of time since 31st May was the

last date for closing the admissions and therefore, the learned

Single Judge was not right in ordering re-counseling.

45. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants submitted that the doctors regularised under the

Absorption Rules 2006 have not questioned the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules, they have also accepted the

insertion of Rule 5A to the PGET Rules 2006. Their only plea

ultimately is that the Deputation Rules framed under the

KCSR would prevail over the PGET Rules 2006 since the

admission to Post-graduate courses is by way of deputation

for higher studies. Therefore, the Rules made under the Act

have an over-riding effect over all other laws and that the

PGET Rules 2006, which are made under the Capitation Fee

Act cannot over-ride the KCSR having regard to Section 12 of
the Capitation Fee Act and
Section 14
of the Act. Moreover,

according to the appellants, these two rules operate in

different fields. It was also clarified that the Deputation Rules

is not a piece of subordinate legislation, but it is a part of the

Karnataka Civil Services Act, whereas the PGET Rules 2006

are delegated legislation, which cannot have an over-riding

effect on the Act.

46. It was also reiterated that when once the amendment

was made to the Absorption Rules by omitting the embargo

under Rule 3(2) of the Rules, then the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR was at once applicable to all in-service

doctors en bloc. It was also clarified that the appellants have

not questioned the participation of the doctors in the

admission process, but their contention is with regard to the

eligibility for sending the doctors for deputation when they

have not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 61 of the KCSR. It

was stated that the doctors absorbed under the Absorption

Rules 2006 are eligible to be deputed for Post-graduate

Course and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right

in ordering re-counseling of in-service candidates by taking
into consideration those doctors who were absorbed under

the 2007 and 2009 Rules also.

47. It was also contended by another Senior Counsel that

when once the contract doctors are absorbed into service,

they are lowest in the seniority list. There are certain terms

and conditions, subject to which, absorption has been made

and the conditions for absorption cannot be taken away with

retrospective effect. That the State Government has doubly

favoured the contract doctors inasmuch as the embargo

placed in the Absorption Rules have been omitted with

retrospective effect and also, weightage of marks to the

contract doctors is also permissible having regard to their

service rendered as contract doctors.

48. Learned counsel on both sides have relied upon certain

decisions in support of their respective contentions which

shall be referred to, during the course of this judgment.
Point for consideration:

49. Having regard to the legal matrix and the varied

submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and counsel on

both sides, the point that arises for our consideration is:

"Whether the learned Single Judge was right in
ordering maintenance of status quo in respect of the
counseling which had already taken place prior to
the grant of interim orders by this court and
directing the completion of the counseling process
for admission to Post-graduate Medical Courses
from the in-service category of doctors in terms of
the merit list prepared prior to the interim order
granted by this court?"

Analysis of Relevant Acts and Rules:

50.
The Karnataka State Civil Service Act, 1978
is an Act to

regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of

persons appointed to Civil Service in the State of Karnataka

and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of

Karnataka. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 3
speaks

about the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service

of persons appointed to public services by way of Rules.
Clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of
Section 3
states that all rules

relating to matters referred to in sub-section (1) and in force

on the date of commencement of the Act made by the

Governor under the proviso to
Article 309
of the Constitution

of India, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service

of persons appointed to civil services and posts in connection

with the affairs of the State shall be deemed to be rules made

under sub-section (1) and shall continue in force until they

are modified or replaced by rules made under this Act. The

said Act received the assent of the President on the

12.07.1985 but came into force only on 30.05.1990. Rule 6

states that the Act and any rule made or deemed to have been

made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law with

respect to matters for which provision is made in this Act or

for which rules can be made under the Act. Sub-section (2) of

Section 8
states that any rule made under this Act may be

made with retrospective effect and when such a rule is made,

the reasons for making the rule would have to be specified in

a statement to be laid before both Houses of the State

Legislature and subject to any modification made under sub-
section (3), every rule made under the Act has the effect as if

it is enacted in the Act. Owing to the aforesaid deeming

provisions Rule 61 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rule, 1958

read with Appendix-IIA which deals with deputation of or

grant of study leave to Government servants for prosecution

of special course of study consisting of higher studies or

specialised training within India are part and parcel of the

Act. Under the said Rule and Appendix, the Government may

depute a Government servant for higher studies or specialised

training in a professional or technical subject having a direct

and close connection with the sphere of his duty at a

recognised institution within the State or outside the State

but within India, if he or she has completed five years of

regular service and is below 48 years of age. The number of

Government servants to be deputed at any point of time for

higher studies or specialised training has to be kept at a

minimum, not exceeding 5% of the sanctioned permanent

strength of the concerned cadre. The selection of a candidate

for higher studies or specialised training has to be made

strictly on the basis of seniority except for reasons to be

recorded in writing.
51.
The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of

Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
(hereinafter referred to as

'Capitation Fee Act') has been enacted to curb the evil practice

of collection of capitation fee for admission to educational

institutions in the State of Karnataka and to regulate certain

matters relating there to. The said Act received the assent of

the President on the 20.07.1984.
Section 4
of the said Act

deals with regulation of admission to educational institutions,

on the basis of general or special orders, as may be made by

the Government in this behalf and any other law for the time

being in force, with regard to the minimum qualification for

admission to any course of study in an educational

institution, which as may be specified by the university

concerned where the educational institution is maintained by

or affiliated to such university or by the Government in the

case of other courses of study in any other educational

institution. It also regulates the maximum number of

students that could be admitted to the course of study in an

educational institution, which may be fixed by the

Government from time to time.
Section 5
regulates tuition fee
or any other fee or deposit or other amount that may be

received or collected by any educational institution or class of

such institutions in respect of any or all class or classes of

students. Section 12 states that the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time

being in force. Section 14 enables the State Government to

make rules for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of

the Act.

5522.. PPG
GEETT R
Ruulleess 22000066 h
haavvee bbeeeen
n een
naacctteedd ppu
urrssu
uaan
ntt ttoo

S
Seeccttiioon
n 1144 ooff tth
hee C
Caappiittaattiioon
n FFeeee A
Acctt.. C
Cllaau
usseess ((cc)),, ((gg)) aan
ndd ((h

h)) ooff

R
Ruullee 22 ooff tth
hee ssaaiidd R
Ruulleess ddeeffiin
nee E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt,, IIn
n--sseerrvviiccee

C
Caan
nddiiddaatteess aan
ndd M
Meerriitt rreessppeeccttiivveellyy.. R
Ruullee 33 ddeeaallss w
wiitth
h

E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt,, R
Ruullee 44 ssppeeaakkss ooff E
Elliiggiibbiilliittyy ttoo aappppeeaarr ffoorr tth
hee

E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt,, w
whheerreeaass R
Ruullee 1100 ddeeaallss w
wiitth
h pprroocceeddu
urree ffoorr

sseelleeccttiioon
n ooff iin
n--sseerrvviiccee ccaan
nddiiddaatteess ffoorr aaddm
miissssiioon
n ttoo PPoosstt--

ggrraaddu
uaattee M
Meeddiiccaall aan
ndd D
Deen
nttaall C
Coou
urrsseess.. TTh
huuss,, tth
heerree aarree

ddiiffffeerreen
ntt ccrriitteerriiaa ssppeecciiffiieedd iin
nRRu
ulleess 33,, 44 aan
ndd R
Ruullee 1100.. FFoorr tth
hee

ppu
urrppoossee ooff sseelleeccttiioon
n ooff ccaan
nddiiddaatteess aan
ndd ddeetteerrm
miin
naattiioon
n ooff m
meerriitt,,

tth
hee E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt iiss ccoon
nddu
ucctteedd.. IIn
nssooffaarr aass iin
n--sseerrvviiccee
ccaan
nddiiddaatteess aarree ccoon
ncceerrn
needd,, u
unnddeerr R
Ruullee 33((22)) tth
hoossee w
whhoo h
haavvee

ccoom
mpplleetteedd tth
hrreeee yyeeaarrss ooff sseerrvviiccee aan
ndd ssu
ucccceessssffu
ullllyy ccoom
mpplleetteedd

tth
hee pprroobbaattiioon
naarryy ppeerriioodd aass oon
n tth
hee llaasstt ddaattee ooff rreecceeiipptt ooff

aapppplliiccaattiioon
nss ffoorr tth
hee E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt ccaan
n aappppllyy tth
hrroou
uggh
h pprrooppeerr

cch
haan
nnneell.. TTh
heerreeffoorree,, ffoorr tth
hee ppu
urrppoossee ooff ssu
ubbm
miittttiin
ngg aan
n

aapppplliiccaattiioon
n ffoorr ttaakkiin
ngg tth
hee E
Ennttrraan
nccee TTeesstt ttw
woo ccoon
nddiittiioon
nss aarree

pprreessccrriibbeedd,, tth
heeyy aarree;; ((ii)) ccoom
mpplleettiioon
n ooff tth
hrreeee yyeeaarrss ooff sseerrvviiccee..

IIn
niittiiaallllyy iitt w
waass tth
hrreeee yyeeaarrss oorr rreeggu
ullaarr sseerrvviiccee,, bbu
utt tth
hee

eexxpprreessssiioon
n ''rreeggu
ullaarr'' h
haass bbeeeen
n ddeelleetteedd,, ssu
ubbsseeqqu
ueen
nttllyy,, bbyy

C
Coorrrriiggeen
nddu
umm dated 10.01.2007 and; (ii) as on the last date of

receipt of application for the Entrance Test, the in-service

candidate had to complete the probationary period. Of

course, when it comes to an in-service candidate, he must be

a person belonging to Health and Family Welfare Services and

other services as defined in Clause 2(g) of the PGET Rules

2006.

53. Rule 4 speaks of eligibility to appear for the Entrance

Test, which is a general provision. The eligibility criteria for

appearance in the Entrance Test are as follows:
(a) a candidate must be a citizen of India:

(b) he or she must have studied and passed in the
courses leading to the award of MBBS/BDS
Degree in Colleges recognised by Medical
Council of India/Dental Council of India,
Government of India established by law and
located in Karnataka State; or

(c) candidate must be of Karnataka origin who has
studied MBBS/BDS degrees in colleges outside
Karnataka recognised by Medical Council of
India/Dental Council of India and Government
of India and affiliated to any University
established by law in India.

The Explanation deals with "candidate of Karnataka

Origin".

54. Rule 10 deals with the pprroocceeddu
urree ffoorr sseelleeccttiioon
n ooff iin
n--

sseerrvviiccee ccaan
nddiiddaatteess ffoorr aaddm
miissssiioon
n ttoo PPoosstt--ggrraaddu
uaattee M
Meeddiiccaall

aan
ndd D
Deen
nttaall ccoou
urrsseess. The said Rule prescribes the following

conditions for admission:

(1) (a) that the in-service candidate has to have
atleast three years of regular service:
(b)he has satisfactorily completed the
prescribed period of probation;

(2) that an in-service candidate shall not be eligible
for admission in any subject other than the
speciality in which he is working;

(3) that an in-service candidate who is already
holding a Post-graduate degree in any speciality
shall not be eligible for admission to any other Post-

graduate degree or Diploma;

(4) that an in-service candidate who is already
holding a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality,
through Government deputation, shall be eligible for
admission to Post-graduate degree courses in the
same speciality and shall not be eligible for any
other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses;

(5) an in-service candidate who is studying in
any Post-graduate degree or Diploma Course shall
not be eligible for admission under these rules;

(6) a candidate who is above forty-eight years of
age as on the last date fixed for receipt of
application shall not be eligible for admission.
Answer to the point for consideration:

55. The controversy in these cases is with regard to the

eligibility of certain in-service candidates for Post-graduate

courses, be it degree or Diploma courses. Of course, the

study of the Post-graduate course is by way of deputation

insofar as the in-service candidates are concerned. However,

the conundrum is, as to whether in the matter of deputation

for these courses, the Rules of Deputation made under the

KCSR would apply or the admission to the said courses would

be on the basis of the PGET Rules, 2006. The Rules of

Deputation are made under the KCSR and have to be read as

part and parcel of the Karnataka Civil Services Act, but the

PGET Rules, 2006 are made under the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act and it specifically deals with admission for

the Post-graduate Courses. Therefore, the moot point for our

consideration is, as to whether the Deputation Rules made

under the KCSR as well as the PGET Rules 2006 made under

the Capitation Fee Act have to be harmoniously read for the

purpose of admission of in-service candidates to Post-

graduate Medical and Dental Courses or it is either of the

said Rules which would have an over-riding effect on the
other and therefore, compliance with only one set of Rules is

required for admission to Post-graduate courses.

56. We have extracted and analysed the respective Rules

having regard to the object for which they have been enacted

as well as the conditions prescribed therein. If for the sake of

argument it is assumed that it is Rule 61 read with Appendix-

IIA of the KCSR (Deputation Rules), which are the only Rules

applicable for deputation of an in-service candidate for Post-

graduate studies, then the question would be as to whether

the eligibility criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006

would have to be given a go-by. It is noted that there are

more number of criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules,

2006 at the stage of application for an Entrance Test,

eligibility to appear for an Entrance Test and for admission to

a Post-graduate course that is, at three stages. On the other

hand, the Deputation Rule framed under Rule 61 of the KCSR

is a general rule concerning deputation of all Government

servants for higher studies or other training based on

seniority, except for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

Under the said Rules of Deputation, a Government servant is
not required to apply for or appear for an Entrance Test.

Under the said Rules, the selection of a candidate for higher

studies or specialised training is made strictly on the basis of

seniority and the number of Government servants to be

deputed at any point of time for higher studies or specialised

training has to be at a minimum, not exceeding 5% of the

sanctioned permanent strength of the concerned cadre.

Whereas under the PGET Rules, 2006 specific conditions are

prescribed for application to an Entrance Test, eligibility to

take the Entrance Test and for admission to a Post-graduate

course. The varied conditions which have been listed supra

are conspicuous by their absence in the Deputation Rules for

higher studies under the KCSR. In other words, even if a

Government servant fulfills the conditions prescribed under

Rule 61 read with Appendix-IIA of the Deputation Rules, he or

she would not be eligible for admission to a Post-graduate

course unless and until he/she fulfills the eligibility criteria

ever for the application for the Entrance Test, eligibility to

take Entrance Test as well as the admission for the Post-

graduate Courses. One cannot lose sight of the fact that we

are concerned with deputation for Post-graduate course in
Medical/Dental Course and not any other course. Therefore,

the eligibility criteria prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006

necessarily have to be fulfilled by an in-service candidate

irrespective of whether such a candidate has fulfilled the

conditions prescribed under Rule 61 of the KCSR read with

Appendix-IIA.

57. The bone of contention in these cases, however, is with

regard to the completion of the requisite number of years of

service for being deputed for higher studies. Under the

Deputation Rules, it is five years of regular service. However,

under the PGET Rules 2006 for the purpose of application for

the entrance test, it is only three years of service. Whereas,

when it comes to the stage of admission to Post-graduate

Courses, it is three years of regular service. In addition, an

in-service candidate would have to complete the prescribed

period of probation. Such a condition is also necessary at the

time of making the application. But under Rule 61 of KCSR

all that is stated is five years of regular service, the

requirement of completion of probation is not necessary.

Similarly, under Rule 10 there are other conditions which
have to be fulfilled by an in-service candidate before he/she is

admitted to a Post-graduate course, the same are stated

supra. Two significant conditions can be mentioned at this

stage. One is that, an in-service candidate who is already

holding a Post-graduate Diploma in any speciality, through

Government deputation, would be eligible for admission to

Post-graduate degree courses in the same speciality and

secondly, any in-service candidate who is already holding a

Post-graduate degree in any speciality shall not be eligible for

any other Post-graduate degree or Diploma courses. This can

only mean that if a candidate has secured a Diploma in any

speciality on the basis of the deputation made by the

Government, then he shall be eligible for Post-graduate

degree course in the same speciality, but would not be eligible

for any other Post-graduate degree or Diploma in other

speciality. In other words, an in-service candidate can obtain

a Diploma or a degree in the same speciality, but not in any

other speciality. That apart, a candidate who is above 48

years of age on the last date fixed for receipt of application is

ineligible for admission. Therefore, the conditions prescribed

under the PGET Rules, 2006 are more rigorous at every stage
of selection and admission and have to be satisfied by an in-

service candidate before he/she is admitted to a Post-

graduate degree/diploma course despite being qualified under

the Deputation Rules.

58. The specific controversy, however, is with regard to the

condition prescribed in the PGET Rules 2006 that an in-

service candidate who has put in three years of service as on

the last date of receipt of application is eligible to apply for the

Entrance Test whereas the condition under Rule 61 of the

KCSR pertaining to deputation of Government servants for

higher studies it is the completion of five years of regular

service. This controversy assumes importance in the context

of doctors appointed by direct recruitment and contract

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules. The

appointment by direct recruitment is the usual mode of

appointment. Since the State Government for various

reasons did not resort to direct recruitment, but appointed

doctors on contract basis, the need to regularise them arose

and Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009 were made.

Therefore, the terms and conditions for appointment of
doctors by direct recruitment are distinct from the terms and

conditions of Absorption of contract doctors, which are made

under special Rules of Absorption, whereas recruitment

under the Recruitment Rules are general Rules. Of course,

once the contract doctors are absorbed into service, a

common seniority list of the directly recruited doctors and the

absorbed doctors would be formulated. Under the Absorption

Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, the contract doctors subsequent

to Absorption had to work atleast for a period of six years

from the date of Absorption in rural areas and were not to be

deputed for higher studies during that period. The State

Government felt that this condition placed on the contract

doctors who are absorbed under the Absorption Rules with

regard to being ineligible for deputation for higher studies for

a period of six years was a stringent condition. Particularly,

having regard to the fact that insofar as directly recruited

doctors had to complete only five years of regular service for

being eligible to be deputed for higher studies under the

Deputation Rules. It is under these circumstances, that the

State Government omitted the clause pertaining to ineligibility

for deputation for higher studies for a period of six years
pursuant to absorption under the Absorption Rules. As a

result, of the omission of the said condition from the

Absorption Rules, the contract doctors who were absorbed

into regular service became eligible for deputation for higher

studies even during the period of service in rural areas or in

other words within a period of six years from the date of

absorption.

59. It is in this background, that the in-service candidates

appointed by direct recruitment as well as the doctors who

were absorbed under the Absorption Rules of 2006 have a

grievance with regard to the amendment made to the

Absorption Rules by way of omission of the condition

regarding eligibility for deputation for higher studies. Of

course, the directly recruited doctors have assailed the

Amendment Rules made to the Absorption Rules, whereas

those doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules of 2006

have not assailed the said Rules.

60. While considering the respective contentions of the

learned counsel on both sides, what becomes clear is the fact
that doctors appointed by direct recruitment as well as

doctors appointed initially on contract basis and

subsequently absorbed into regular service are a class apart

and form two distinct categories and the classification

between these two categories of doctors are on the basis of an

intelligible differentia having a nexus to the object sought to

be achieved. Therefore, we are of the view that the doctors

appointed by direct recruitment cannot maintain a challenge

to the terms and conditions of the absorption of the contract

doctors as the Absorption Rules are Special Rules and in no

way have any adverse impact on the terms and conditions of

appointment of the doctors appointed by direct recruitment.

On the other hand, the State Government has saved the

status and position of doctors appointed by direct recruitment

in Rule 4 of the Absorption Rules by stating that the service

rendered by a person as a contract doctor prior to the date of

absorption shall not count for the purpose of seniority,

granting of promotion as specialist under the Time Bound

Advancement Scheme or for Grant Selection Time Scale of

Pay etc. On the other hand, Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules

states that all the rules regulating the conditions and service
of the Government servants insofar as they are inconsistent

with the provisions of the Absorption Rules shall not apply to

persons absorbed under the Absorption Rules which are as

stated above special rules and which are also made under

Section 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services Act. Therefore, the

Absorption Rules are Special Rules and the absorbed doctors

are a special category of doctors. The controversy, however,

does not end.

61. In the context of admission to Post-graduate Courses by

deputation of doctors is concerned, the grievance of the

appellants is with regard to the omission of the condition that

the contract doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules

shall not be deputed for higher studies during a period of six

years from the date of absorption by virtue of the Amendment

Rules. The said amendment to the Absorption Rules are

made with retrospective effect from 30.12.2011 i.e., the date

when the Draft Rules were published as stated in the Draft

Rules itself and therefore, the contention of the appellants is

that the amendment to the Absorption Rules omitting such a

condition with retrospective effect is arbitrary, unreasonable
and violative of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution of India

as they have been made after the process of selection for Post-

graduate courses commenced. Such a contention cannot be

accepted for two reasons. Firstly, because as stated above,

the doctors appointed by way of direct recruitment from a

distinct class as opposed to contract doctors regularised

under the Absorption Rules and secondly, the Absorption

Rules themselves are made under Section 8 of the Karnataka

Civil Services Act which permits rules to be made with

retrospective effect. Therefore, the appellants have also

contended that if the omission of the condition made by the

Amendment Rules is held to be valid, then in that case Rule

61 read with Appendix-IIA of the KCSR (Deputation Rules)

would automatically occupy the field and it is only those

doctors who have put in five years of regular service and are

below 45 years of age would be entitled for deputation and

therefore, the contract doctors absorbed under Absorption

Rules 2007 and 2009 are doctors who have not completed five

years of regular service would be ineligible to be deputed for

Post-graduate studies as in-service candidates.
62. It is in this context that Rule 61 of the KCSR pertaining

to deputation for higher studies and the PGET Rules of 2006

have to be considered together. As already analysed above,

the PGET Rules, 2006 have several conditions to be fulfilled

by in-service candidates before they can be admitted for Post-

graduate Courses which conditions are not found in Rule 61

of the KCSR. The object and purpose of the PGET Rules,

2006 is to select the most meritorious candidates for Post-

graduate Courses even within the in-service quota, on the

basis of the conditions prescribed under the Rules at the

stage of application for the Entrance Test, at the stage of

appearance for the Entrance Test and finally at the stage of

admission to the Post-graduate courses. It is also noted that

even if an in-service candidate fulfills the condition of Rule 61

of the KCSR, he would not be entitled to admission for a Post-

graduate course until and unless he fulfills the conditions

prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006. The Deputation

Rules on the other hand, do not deal with the necessity of

taking an Entrance Test for being selected and admitted to a

Post-graduate Medical or Dental Course. The PGET Rules
2006 are thus "Special Rules" framed by the State

Government in the matter of admission to Post-graduate

Medical and Dental Courses both degree and Diploma of

pursuant to the decision of Supreme Court in Gopal

D.Thirthani and
Regulation 9
of the PGME Regulations.

Regulation 9
of the said Regulation reads as follows:

"6.
Regulation 9
of the Regulations framed by the
Medical Council of India reads as follows:

"9. Selection of postgraduate students-(1)
Students for postgraduate medical courses shall
be selected strictly on the basis of their academic
merit.

For determining the academic merit, the
university/institution may adopt any one of the
following procedures both for degree and diploma
courses:

on the basis of merit as determined by a
competitive test conducted by the State
Government or by the competitive authority

appointed by the State Government or by the
university/group of universities in the same State;

on the basis of merit as determined by centralised
test held at the national level; or

on the basis of the individual cumulative
performance at the first, second and third MBBS
examinations, if such examination have been
passed from the same university; or
combination of (i) and (iii):

Provided that whatever entrance test for
postgraduate admissions is held by a State
Government or a university or any other authorised
examining body, the minimum percentage of marks
for eligibility for admission to postgraduate
medical course shall be fifty per cent for all the
candidates:

Provided further that in non-governmental
institutions fifty per cent of the total seats shall be
filled by the competent authority and the
remaining fifty per cent by the management of the
institution on the basis of merit."

63. Having regard to the aforesaid Regulations, the State

Government has framed the PGET Rules 2006 prescribing not

only the mode of selection for admission to Post-graduate

courses both medical and dental, but also the eligibility of the
candidates for prosecuting such courses. The object of PGET

Rules 2006 is to select and admit those candidates who are

meritorious having secured 50% atleast in the Entrance Test,

provided they have the eligibility to apply and take the exam

as well as being admitted to the course. The Apex court

in several decisions has emphasised on the need to maintain

merit in the matter of selection and admission of candidates

for professional courses, particularly at the level of Post-

graduate and Super Speciality Courses. Therefore, in the

instant case, we cannot lost sight of the fact that admissions

are being made to Post-graduate Medical Courses, where

merit is the overwhelming condition for admission of all the

candidates, in-service or non-service, who have to take a

common Entrance Test and but for a separate stream of

admission being kept apart, the in-service candidates would

have otherwise competed with the non-service candidates.

The prescription of the eligibility criteria under the PGET

Rules 2006 would therefore, prevail over any other Rules of

Deputation made as a condition of service for higher studies.

In the instant case what we have discerned is the eligibility

for admission to Post-graduate course and not a mere
deputation for higher studies. The selection and admission

for a Post-graduate course is circumscribed by certain terms

and conditions prescribed under the PGET Rules 2006 which

are common both with regard to in-service candidates as well

as those candidates who are not in service. But as far as in-

services candidates are concerned, certain additional

prescriptions are made under the PGET Rules 2006 and it

has already been observed that these additional prescriptions

are absent in the KCSR. Therefore, the PGET Rules 2006

being Special Rules for admission to a Post-graduate Course

would obviously prevail over the Rule 61 of the KCSR, which

is a general rule for deputation. Also, an in-service candidate,

merely on the basis of his seniority cannot be sent for

deputation and admitted to a Post-graduate course, unless he

qualifies under PGET 2006 Rules. Moreover, under the

Deputation Rules, it is only upto 5% of the sanctioned

permanent strength of the concerned cadre that can be

deputed for higher studies. Whereas, under the PGET Rules

2006 within the seat matrix, certain percentage of seats are

categorised as Government seats as opposed to Management

seats and within the quota of Government seats, certain seats
are ear-marked for in-service candidates in which there is

reservation of seats for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe

as per Rule 12 of the PGET Rules 2006. Therefore, there are

numerous conditions which have to be complied with by an

in-service candidate before becoming eligible for admission for

a Post-graduate course though by way of deputation. It is for

all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the PGET Rules, 2006

would prevail over the Deputation Rules in the matter of

admission to Post-graduate courses in Medical. In other

words the PGET Rules 2006 have an over-riding effect over

the Deputation Rules made under KCSR.

64.
Section 6
of the Act states that the Act and any Rule

made or deemed to have been made thereunder would have

effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law with respect to matters for which

provision is made in the Act or for which Rules can be made

under the Act. At the same time, Section 12 of the Capitation

Fee Act also states that the provisions of the said Act would

have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contain in any other law for the time being in force.
65. Learned Senior Counsel for some of the appellants has

brought to our notice these two provisions to contend that

ultimately, the Rules made under the Act would prevail over

the Rules made under the Capitation Fee Act. On a

comparative reading of the two provisions, we note that they

are made in two different enactments whose objects are

totally alien to each other. However, the overlapping aspect is

with regard to deputation of in-service doctors for Post-

graduate studies. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, under

the Act provision is made only for the deputation of in-service

doctors for higher studies based on seniority, the number of

years of regular service and the age factor. No provision is

made with regard to the eligibility for selection and admission

on the basis of merit. In fact, Rule 61 of the KCSR read with

Appendix-II are silent on this aspect. On the other hand, the

PGET rules 2006 made under the provision of Capitation Act

deals with not only the number of years of requisite service,

the maximum age limit and also eligibility being based on

merit. In fact Section 12 of the Capitation Fee Act provides

for an over-riding effect of the provisions of the Act
notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other

law for the time being in force. The Deputation Rules made

under KCSR were in force prior to the enactment of the

Capitation Fee Act. However, it is the provisions of the

Capitation Fee Act which would prevail over any other law for

the time being in force in view of the non-obstante clause in

Section 12.

66. In this context, Section 4 of the Capitation Fee Act

provides for the minimum qualification for admission, the

maximum students who could be admitted to the course of

study and the reservation of seats. Further, pursuant to the

directions in Gopal Thirthani,
Regulation 9
of the PGME

Regulations have been made which also speaks about merit

determined by a competitive test. These Regulations are

framed by the Medical Council of India, which is the

Authority responsible for maintaining standards in medical

education through out India. Therefore, for these reasons

also, we hold that the PGET Rules 2006 have an over-riding

effect over the Deputation Rules made under the KCSR.
67.
Section 8
of the Act empowers the State Government to

make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act with

retrospective effect and when such a Rule is made, the

reasons for making the Rule has to be specified in a

statement to be laid in both Houses of the State Legislature

and subject to any modification, every Rule made under the

Act has the effect as if it is enacted in the Act. The

Absorption Rules have been made by virtue of Rule 8 of the

Act.

68. It is a settled position in law that if on a particular

subject several rules have been made, the Special Rules

would always prevail over the general rules vide Maya

Mathew V/s. State of Kerala & others (2010) 4 SCC 498).

In the instant case, we have held that the PGET Rules 2006

are Special Rules of admission for Post-graduate Courses

which also take into consideration the deputation of in-

service candidates for such courses. They are special rules

with regard to deputation for higher studies, which would

prevail over the general rules of deputation under the KCSR.
69. Since we have held that it is only the PGET Rules 2000,

which have to be considered for the purpose of deputation for

Post-graduate studies from the category of in-service

candidates, we also hold that the decision of this Court in

Dr.Ranganath's case under which three separate merit lists

were prepared based on the length of service of the in-service

candidates completed were upheld and also the interim order

of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15539/2011 dated

01.05.2011 and the subsequent order of the Division Bench

dated 07.06.2011 are not relevant for the present controversy.

Even if for a moment it is considered that the PGET Rules,

2006 do not have an over-riding effect over the Deputation

Rules, even then, having regard to the amendment made to

the Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009, which we uphold

it would not be now necessary to prepare three separate merit

lists of in-service doctors as all doctors absorbed under the

said Absorption Rules are eligible to take the Entrance Test

provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under

PGET Rules. We hold that amendments made to the

Absorption Rules are valid. Firstly because, they are made

under Rule 8 of the Act which itself permits making Rules
with retrospective effect and secondly, because the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules would have no

impact on the right of the directly recruited doctors to

participate in the admission process to Post-graduate

Courses, as the directly recruited doctors and the contract

doctors who have been subsequently absorbed fall into

different classes. That apart, the effect of the amendments

made to the Absorption Rules have enlarged the scope of

eligibility of in-service candidates and has not taken away the

vested right of in-service candidate from participating in the

selection and admission process. Therefore, the amendment

made with retrospective effect i.e., from 30.12.2011, prior to

the last date of filing of applications for the Entrance Test are

legal and valid.

70. In N.T.Devin Katti & others -V/s- KPSC & others

(1990)3 SCC 157) the Apex Court has held thus:

"If the recruitment Rules are amended
retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in
that event selection must be held in accordance
with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have
retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon
the language of the Rules and its construction to
ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative
intent is ascertained either by express provision or
by necessary implication; if the amended Rules are
not retrospective in nature the selection must be
regulated in accordance with the rules and orders
which were in force on the date of advertisement.
Determination of this question largely depends on
the facts of each case having regard to the terms
and conditions set out in the advertisement and the
relevant rules and orders. Lest there be any
confusion, we would like to make it clear that a
candidate on making application for a post
pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any
vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is
otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant
rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,
he does acquire a vested right of being considered
for selection is accordance with the rules as they
existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be
deprived of that limited right on the amendment of
rules during the pendency of selection unless the
amended rules are retrospective in nature."
71. In the case of P.D.Aggarwal & others V/s. State of

U.P. & others (1987) 3 SCC 622) also the Apex Court has

held that the Government has got the power under proviso to

Article 309
of the Constitution to make such rules and to

amend them giving retrospective effect. Nevertheless, such

retrospective amendments cannot take away the vested rights

and the amendments must be reasonable, not arbitrary or

discriminatory and violating
Articles 14
and
of the

Constitution. To the same effect are the observations in the

case of Union of India & others V/s. Tushar Ranjan

Mohanty & others (1994) 5 SCC 450).

72. There can be no contrary view to the aforesaid

observations of the Apex Court. However, in the instant case

Section 8
of the Act specifically empowers the State

Government to make rules with retrospective effect. It is on

the strength of the said provision that the amendments have

been made to the Absorption Rules of the Act. That apart, by

the amendments made to the Absorption Rules, no vested

right of the appellants for being considered for selection and

admission for Post-graduate Medical Courses in terms of their
merit have been taken away. In the instant case, the

amendments are made to the Absorption Rules with effect

from 30.12.2011 i.e., prior to the last date for submission of

applications to appear in the Entrance Test by the said

Amendment Rules. The right of the appellants who were

absorbed under Absorption Rules 2006 to be considered for

selection and admission has not been deprived. Their rights

have remained intact. On the other hand, the effect of the

amendment made to the Absorption Rules is to enlarge the

scope of eligibility to the doctors who have been absorbed

under the Absorption Rules of 2006, 2007 and 2009.

73. As far as the appellants who are the direct recruits are

concerned, they are a class apart and cannot fall into the

same category as the contract doctors who have been

absorbed into service. Therefore, their right to be selected

and admitted is totally unaffected by the amendment made to

the Absorption Rules. Whereas, as far as contract doctors

absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 is concerned, the

amendment in fact enures to their benefit. It is for this

reason that they have not assailed the amendment made to
Absorption Rules, 2006. Even this class of doctors cannot

have any grievance to the amendment made to the Absorption

Rules of 2007 and 2009 having regard to the fact that the

doctors absorbed under the Absorption Rules, 2006 are

themselves the beneficiaries of the amendment and their right

to selection and admission to Post-graduate Courses is

unaffected. Therefore, the amendments in no way take away

the vested rights of the contract doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules, 2006. Therefore, the amendments made to

the Absorption Rules 2006, 2007 and 2009 are valid.

74. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the

respondents has relied upon the following decisions with

regard to the permissibility of the retrospective operation of

Rules. In the case of State Bank's Staff Union (Madras

Circle) V/s. Union of India and others (2005 (7) SCC 584)

it has been held that:

"31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that vested rights cannot be taken away by the
legislature by way of retrospective legislation. The
plea is without substance. Whenever any
amendment is brought in force retrospectively or
any provision of the Act is deleted retrospectively,
in this process rights of some are bound to be
affected one way or the other. In every case the
exercise by the legislature by introducing a new
provision or deleting an existing provision with
retrospective effect per se does not amount to
violation of
Article 14
of the Constitution. The
legislature can change as observed by this Court in
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re the basis on
which a decision is given by the Court and thus
change the law in general, which will affect a class
of persons and events at large. It cannot, however,
set aside an individual decision inter partes and
affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act
on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising
the judicial power by the State and to function as
an appellate court or tribunal, which is against the
concept of separation of powers."

75. To the same effect are Bhubaneshwar Singh &

another V/s. Union of India & others (1994) 6 SCC 77),

K.V.Subba Rao & others V/s. Government of Andhra

Pradesh & others (1988) 2 SCC 201) and Dr. Indrani
Pyarelal gupta & others V/s. W.R.Natu & others (AIR

1963 SCC 274). Since
Section 8
of the Act itself permits the

Rule making authority to make Rule with retrospective effect

as State Government Rules are valid and as they have effect

prior to the last date for receipt of application for the

Entrance Test, there can be no grievance on the score.

76. In Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd & another V/s.

State of Haryana & others (2006) 3 SCC 620) and

N.T.Devin Katti & others V/s. Karnataka Public Service

Commission & others (1990) 3 SCC 157) also Recruitment

Rules were amended retrospectively during the pendency of

selection, in that event selection must be held in terms of the

Amended Rule, is the dicta of the Apex Court. The said

analogy would also apply for selection and admission to

professional courses.

77. The next issue to be considered is with regard to the

maintainability of a challenge to a service rule before the High

Court as opposed to the Administrative Tribunal. In

L.Chandra Kumar V/s. Union of India & others (1997) 3
SCC 261) the Apex Court has held that though

Administrative Tribunals are competent to hear matters

where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned, but in

discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the

High Courts and the Supreme court which have, under our

constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such

an obligation. Their function in this respect is only

supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be

subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective

High Courts. Though the Tribunals act as the courts of first

instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have

been constituted and the litigants would have to approach the

Tribunals prior to approaching the High Court, but having

regard to the fact that the quintessence of the controversy in

these cases is with regard to the selection and admission of

in-service doctors to Post-graduate Medical Courses and the

challenge made to the amendment to the Absorption Rules is

also one of the questions to be determined, we are of the view

that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that

the appellants had to first approach the Administrative

Tribunal, assailing the amendment made to the Absorption
Rules and then approach this Court with regard to the

admission for Post-graduate medical courses.

78. Learned Single Judge was also not right in placing

reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Rajeev Kumar & another V/s. Hemraj Singh Chauhan &

others (2010) 4 SCC 554). In the said case, the appellants

therein had tried to implead themselves at the stage when the

matter was before the High Court, whereas they were not

parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is

under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the

appellants could not approach the High Court directly by

treating it as the Court of first instance.

79. Even otherwise, the amendment to the Absorption Rules

is closely linked with the eligibility criteria prescribed under

the PGET Rules 2006, which we have held have an over-

riding effect on the Deputation Rules. It is in order to create

a level playing field for all in-service category candidates,

whether appointed by regular recruitment or by way of

absorption that the embargo on deputation for higher studies
for a period of six years immediately after absorption has

been omitted. The main issue in these cases is with regard to

eligibility of the in-service doctors to be admitted to post-

graduate medical course. The challenge to the amendment to

Absorption Rules is only incidental. Therefore, this High

Court has the jurisdiction to consider a challenge made to

Service Rules in the context of admission of in-service doctors

to Post-graduate medical courses. Therefore, that portion of

the order of the learned Single Judge that no challenge to a

Service Rule is permissible before this Court is set aside.

80. This leaves us with the consideration of one other

contention pertaining to the validity of Rule 5A of the PGET

Rules, 2006 granting weightage to those in-service candidates

who have rendered service in rural areas. The said Rule was

inserted by the Amendment Rules of 2011 by virtue of

notification dated 18.01.2011. However, it was withdrawn

with immediate effect on 07.03.2011, but was revived with

effect from 07.04.2011. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A pertains to

the giving of weightage of four marks for each completed year

of service beyond five years of service to the marks secured in
the Entrance Test subject to maximum of thirty marks,

provided the candidate has secured the minimum qualifying

marks. The proviso states that for each completed year of

rural service beyond five years of service, a weightage of eight

marks would be added to the marks secured in the Entrance

Test instead of four marks, subject to maximum of thirty

marks. 'Rural Service' has been explained to include the

service rendered in rural areas under the contract period as

well as rural service rendered under the Rural Weightage

Selection. The challenge is made to the proviso as it

prescribes eight marks in lieu of four marks to the doctors

who have served in rural areas and secondly, that the

weightage of eight marks is unreasonable. The Supreme

Court in Gopal Thirthani has held that weightage given for

rural service is valid provided it is reasonable.

81. In the instant case, insofar as non-rural service is

concerned, four marks for each completed year of service

beyond five years of service are added. But insofar as rural

service is concerned, it is eight marks. In other words, it is

the double the marks awarded in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A. In
that view of the matter, it cannot be held to be unreasonable.

In fact, the weightage of marks could have been '1' mark for

non-rural service and '2' marks for rural service or '2' marks

for non-rural service and '4' marks for rural service. Instead

it is fixed at '4' marks for non-rural service and '8' marks for

rural service. This is a matter, which is within the wisdom of

the rule making authority and this court cannot sit in

judgment over the quantum of marks awarded for rural

service. That apart, the challenge made to the award of eight

marks for rural service is made by those appellants who are

themselves beneficiaries of the award of four marks for each

complete year of service beyond five years under sub-rule(1)

or Rule 5A. The maximum marks that can be awarded is

thirty only. This Rule has been in force from 18.01.2011 or at

any rate from 07.04.2011. The appellants were well aware of

this Rule and they have participated in the selection and

admission process for Post-graduate course. They are

therefore, estopped from challenging the Rule.

82. In State of Jharkhand V/s. Ashok Kumar Dangi

(2011) 13 SCC 383) it has been held that where candidates
appeared for the exam without challenging the retrospective

amendment of the eligibility conditions and participated in

the selection process without any demur, they would not be

permitted to challenge the retrospective amendments after the

declaration of result. To the same effect is Dhananjay Malik

& others V/s. State of Uttaranchal & others (2008) 4 SCC

171). In this case, as observed, the Rule granting weightage

is in force since 07.04.2011 long prior to the notification

dated 21.11.2011 calling upon eligible candidates to apply for

the Entrance Test.

83. The State Government by Circular dated 11.04.2012

published the Draft Rank List prepared by allotting service

weightage marks to depute the in-service doctors for Post-

graduate studies for the year 2012-2013. The Draft Rank List

is in three parts. Those in-service candidates who have

completed above five years of service; those candidates who

have completed above four years of service; and thirdly, those

candidates who have completed above three years of service.

The same was objected to by certain doctors by placing

reliance on the Rule 61 of the KCSR and the interim order of
the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2011 passed in

W.P.Nos.15539-42/2011 as well as the confirmatory order of

the Division Bench. Subsequently, they challenged the

amendments made to the Absorption Rules, 2007 and 2009

giving retrospective effect from 30.12.2011. By interim order

dated 15.05.2012, the amendments to the Absorption Rules

were stayed by this Court. As a result, the State Government

prepared another merit list excluding those in-service

candidates who were absorbed into service pursuant to the

2007 and 2009 Absorption Rules. Consequently, the in-

service candidates who were excluded from the merit list, filed

writ petitions seeking quashing of Circular dated 15.05.2012

and to allow the petitioners to appear for counseling to be

held on 17.05.2012 as per the notification dated 04.05.2012.

It is under these circumstances, that the learned Single

Judge by interim order dated 24.05.2012 directed

maintenance of status quo in respect of the counseling which

had already taken place and had stayed further counseling.

84. The only other controversy is, with regard to the State

Government preparing a fresh merit list pursuant to the
Interim Order of stay granted by this court on 15.05.2012,

staying the operation of the amendments made to the

Absorption Rules to 2006, 2007 and 2009. On account of the

order of stay granted by this court, the State Government

applied Rule 61 of the KCSR and selected only those

candidates who had completed five years of regular service

and who are below 48 years of age while revising merit list as

the initial merit list comprised of in-service doctors who had

completed three years of regular service. In this context, the

case of the doctors regularised under the Absorption Rules of

2006 is slightly different from the case of doctors regularised

pursuant to regular Absorption Rules of 2007 and 2009. As

far as the contract doctors appointed under the Absorption

Rules of 2006 is concerned, what is contended is, since under

Rule 61 of the KCSR, they have completed five years of

regular service, in the year 2011, they were eligible to take the

Entrance Test, but the doctors absorbed under the

Absorption Rules 2007 and 2009, were not eligible to take the

Entrance Test since they had not completed five years of

regular service under the Deputation Rules. It has been held

that Rule 61 of the KCSR (Deputation Rules) are not at all
applicable as in the matter of admission to Post-graduate

courses under the PGET Rules, 2006 in-service doctors who

have completed three years of regular service and who are

eligible under various eligibility criteria prescribed under the

PGET Rules 2006 and who have taken the Entrance Test and

have secured a minimum of 50% are eligible to be considered

for admission. In that view of the matter, the State

Government could not have excluded the doctors absorbed

under the 2007 and 2009 Rules from the merit list pursuant

to the interim order dated 15.05.2012 granted by this court.

For that matter, even directly recruited doctors who have

completed three years of regular service and have taken the

Entrance Test have to be considered while drawing up of the

merit list. In the circumstances, the merit list prepared by the

State Government excluding all doctors who have not

completed five years of regular service is illegal and requires

to be quashed. The State Government has to prepare the

merit list of all in-service candidates who have completed

three years of regular service by also taking into consideration

Government Order dated 29.01.2010 which has been upheld

by this Court on 26.04.2010 and have completed the period of
probation for the purpose of admission to the Post-graduate

courses subject to fulfilling of other conditions prescribed under

the PGET Rules 2006.

85. In view of our findings, we direct the extension of time for

the completion of counseling process for admission to Post-

graduate Medical Courses for the in-sesrvice category of doctors

by ten days from today as per the common merit list prepared

prior to the interim order dated 15.05.2012 and keeping in mind

all eligibility criteria prescribed under PGET Rules 2006.

86. While we issue the aforesaid direction, we are also

conscious of the directions and observations of the Supreme

Court in the case of Mridul dhar (Minor) & another V/s. Union

of India & others (2005) 2 SCC 65), Medical council of India

V/s. Manas Ranjan Behera & others (2010) 1 SCC 173) and

also the more recent decision in the case of Priya Gupta V/s.

State of Chhatisgarh (Civil Appeal No.4318/2012 disposed

of on 08.05.2012). However, with all due respect and

deference to the Apex Court, this Court has been constrained to

intervene in these matters having regard to the nature of
controversy touching upon the process of selection and rule of

merit, as in the instant case, there was no certainty with regard

to the merit list itself having regard to the claims and counter

claims raised by various groups within the in-service category

and the impact of the interim order dated 15.05.2012 on the

merit list which was altered owing to the stay of the amendment

made to the Absorption Rules. Therefore, we think it was the

duty of this Court to resolve the controversy in such a manner,

that ultimately, merit would prevail in the matter of selection

and admission to the Post-graduate Courses for the year 2012-

2013. It is, in these circumstances, that this Court has been

under a duty to intervene in these matters. In the result, the

appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE
S*
Index: Y/N