BANU V T Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these petitions are posted for preliminary hearing in 'b' group, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE petitioners in these petitions are presently working as lady Medical Officers in the 5th respondent - Karnataka Power corporation Ltd. (herein after referred to as the "corporation" ). In these petitions, they have prayed for striking down Rule 2 (h) of the karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for admission to Post-Graduate degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental ). Courses Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), as unconstitutional; or in the alternative to strike down the words 'medical' and 'under the karnataka Societies Registration Act 1961' in the said Rule, as unconstitutional.

(3.) SRI Rajeshwar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly submitted that the petitioners are working in the 5th respondent-Corporation, which is also a Government of Karnataka undertaking 'and they are similarly situated like the doctors serving in autonomous Medical Institutions established under the Karnataka societies Registration Act, 1961; and that being the position, there is absolutely no justification to restrict the admission to the post graduate course only to the in-service candidates who are working in autonomous medical institutions established by the Government of Karnataka under the Societies Registration Act. It is his submission that the petitioners who are working in the 5th respondent corporation, also treat the members of the general public and that being the position, for all practical purposes, the petitioners have to be treated as doctors employed and working in autonomous institutions established by the Government of Karnataka under the societies Registration Act. He submits that the classification made for giving preferential treatment to the employees of the autonomous institutions established by the Government of Karnataka as against the petitioners who are employees of the 5th respondent which is also a Government of Karnataka undertaking, is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and violatlve of rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of india. He also submitted that even if the classification Is held to be reasonable, there is absolutely no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the limiting the admission to post graduate purse only in respect of the employees working in autonomous Institutions he submitted that the object of reserving seats for study of post graduate course is to improve the quality of medical service by the doctors who are in-service and that being the object, there cannot be any basis or nexus or making classification of doctors who are working in autonomous institutions and other Government of karnataka undertakings. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of DEEPAK sibal vs PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER and drew my attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment.