MANJULA M Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners grievance is over the exclusion of the E.S.I. Corporation Doctors from the definition of in- service candidates as given in Rule 2(d) of the Karnataka Medical Education Department (Deputation of in-service candidates to Super-Speciality Courses) Rules, 2006.

(2.) SRI K.M.Nataraj, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1 has raised the threshold objection to the maintainability of this petition. He submits that the petitioner has applied for admission to the super speciality course in the general category only. She has given a declaration, dated 06.06.2012 (Annexure-D) to that effect. Having applied in the general category, she is estopped from demanding that her candidature be considered in the category of in-service doctors. He submits that P.G.E.T. Rules, 2006 were published in 2006. Knowing fully well that she is not entitled to be considered as an in-service candidate, she has put in her application on 06.06.2012 in the general category. He submits that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file this petition.

(3.) SRI Vikas Rojipura, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has acted in a bonafide manner by filing the writ petition. He denies that the results were announced and the revised key answers were displayed on 23.06.2012. He submits that the writ petition is filed before the announcement of the results and the display of the revised key answers.