LAWS(KAR)-1970-5-5

N M PRABHU Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

Decided On May 25, 1970
N.M.PRABHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In March 1969, the third respondent, Director of Health Services, issued a notification calling for applications for the post of one Honorary Medical Officer (Surgery) and one post of Honorary Medical Officer in Optholmology in the Karnataka Medical College Hospital, Hubli. The petitioner in WP. No.320 of 1970 made an application for the post of Honorary Medical Officer in Surgery and the petitioners in WPs. Nos. 358 and 515 of 1970 made their applications for the post of Honorary Medical Officer in Optholmology. By the Notification dated 17/19 Janurary 1970, the first respondent-State of Mysore, appointed the second respondent in WPs. Nos.358 and 515 of 1970 as Honorary Medical Officer ha Optholmology and the second respondent in WP. No.320 of 1970 as Honorary Medical Officer in Surgery.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in WP. No.358 of 1970 is that he has been selected by the Selection Committee under Rule 4 (a) of the Rules regulating Recruitment and the conditions of Service of Honorary Medical Officers and Honorary Assistant Medical Officers of Medical Institutions, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules). It is further stated by him that the third respondent has also recommended his appointment as Honorary Medical Officer in Optholmology and that he should have been appointed by the first respondent. It is contended that there has been no recommendation in so far as the second respondent is concerned and that without a recommendation by the third respondent, the Government cannot make the appointment. The contention of the petitioner in WP. No.515 of 1970 is the same.

(3.) In WP. No.320 of 1970, the contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent therein has not been recommended by the third respondent, and therefore, the appointment of the second respondent therein by the first respondent is also not in accordance with the Rules. Hence the petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying that the Government Notification aforesaid be quashed. The prayer for the issue of a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in WP. No.358 of 1970 as Honorary Medical Officer in Optholmology was not pressed. In the affidavit filed by the first respondent-State, the allegation that the third respondent has recommended only the appointment of the petitioner in WP. No.358 of 1970 is not definitely controverted. But, the learned Government Pleader has made available to us the original papers relating to the appointment made by the first respondent under the Notification of appointment viz., Ex.D, in WP. No.515 of 1970 which covers the appointment of the second respondent in WP. No.320 of 1970 and also the second respondent in WP. Nos.358 and 515 of 1970.