B KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these petitions praying for a writ of certiorari quashing orders No. Hfw 109 hs 96, dated 6th march, 1996 and No. Hfw 109 ptd 96, dated 2-5-1997, produced at Annexures-d and f respectively, and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to relieve respondent 3 forthwith and initiate action for filling up the post of director strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the institute.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions, briefly stated, are as follows: jayadeva institute of cardiology (the institute' for short) was established and registered as a society under the Karnataka societies Registration Act with the sole objective of providing comprehensive care to cardiothoracic patients. The governing council is the supreme authority vested with the power to function within the framework of the memorandum of association, rules and bye-laws of the institute. During December 1995 a notification dated 11-12-1995 was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates for consideration for appointment as director. A selection committee headed by Dr. J. p. das, professor and head of the department of cardiology, medical college, cuttack, Orissa recommended the appointment of third respondent. This recommendation was approved by the governing council. It was also approved by the governing council to keep petitioner 1 and another professor in the waiting list. Pursuant to the approval of the appointment of the third respondent by the governing council, the third respondent was appointed as director of the institute on 6th march, 1996. The appointment was limited to three years from the date of appointment. However, on 29-4-1997 just about 13 months after the appointment, the governing council met again and took a decision to appoint the third respondent on a regular basis till his superannuation without restricting his term of appointment to three years. This decision was later approved by the governing council and the third respondent was appointed as such on 2-5-1997 by the state government. It is these twin orders of appointment that are now challenged by the petitioners on the ground that both these appointment orders are in gross violation of the rules and, therefore, bad in law.

(3.) THE rules and regulations of the institute govern all aspects relating to composition of the governing council, conduct of meetings, appointment of director, the financial aspects and the composition of the committees. There is also a set of cadre and recruitment rules which stipulate the mode of recruitment, pay and the service conditions governing all employees of the institute.