PUSHPAVATHI M. D/O MANJEGOWDA M.M. AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE, THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE, THE DIRECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have called in question the endorsements dated 19.4.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 and 18.5.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3 produced at Annexures -P and Q, wherein the request of the petitioners to continue in the employment of the 3rd respondent Institution has been rejected. It is not in dispute that, the petitioners were working on temporary basis in the 3rd respondent - Institute of Medical Sciences for about 4 years. On 6.10.2008, a notification came to be issued to fill up 307 posts in the 3rd respondent - Institute of Medical Sciences. In pursuance of the said notification, posts were filled up and out of the total number of posts, 29 posts are left out despite noticing that they were eligible and qualified to be appointed along with other candidates.

(2.) HOWEVER , the Government, noticing that the large scale irregularities in the matter of recruitment and selection of the candidates in several posts of the 3rd respondent, ordered for enquiry and the Addl. Chief Secretary, on enquiry submitted a report. Based on the said report, the Government cancelled all the selections made in respect of the 3rd respondent by order dated 31.8.2010. Those persons who were selected and whose appointments were cancelled, filed WP Nos. 27062 to 27201/2010 seeking quashing of the order of Addl. Chief Secretary cancelling all the appointments. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.10.2010, wherein a direction was issued to continue the said petitioners as temporary employees.

(3.) HOWEVER , the grievance of the petitioners is that, they were all working for several years, and their services be continued in the post in which they were working as temporary employees. The petitioners and others had earlier approached this Court in WP Nos. 30840 to 30868/2010 and this Court by order dated 25.10.2010 dismissed the said writ petitions by observing that, writ of mandamus cannot be issued by mere asking of the petitioners, by observing that, the mandamus is drastic and extraordinary writ to be issued where (a) there is a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (b) there is an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (c) the lack of any other adequate remedy; and (d) properly invoked jurisdiction of the Court. It was further observed that as no legal right is made out to employment on temporary basis, it disentitles the petitioners for issue of a writ of mandamus.