CHRISTINA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute arising in these two writ petitions are interconnected and therefore the petitions are clubbed, heard and disposed of together by this common order with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of these two petitions are; the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Raichur Institute of Medical Science, Raichur on 14/6/2010. The petitioner claims that she had completed her departmental examination while in service at Raichur Institute of Medical Science, Raichur on 20/4/2011. Thereafter her probation was declared on 13/8/2013 as evidenced by Annexure-C. Subsequently, in response to the advertisement published by the 2nd respondent- Institute, the petitioner had made an application seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physiology. The petitioner was appointed to the said post by the respondent No.2 on 3/5/2014. Thereafter on 8/5/2014, petitioner was allegedly relieved from Raichur Institute of Medical Science and on 9/5/2014, she had joined services in the 2nd respondent-Institution. Considering her experience and seniority, the petitioner was allegedly promoted to the post of Associate Professor by respondent No.2 on 23/6/2014 and in the Medical Council of India Inspection Report also, the petitioner was referred to as Associate Professor.

(3.) When the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent-Institution appears to have issued communication to the petitioner asking her to produce documents to show that she had completed the period of probation. In response to the same, the petitioner has replied stating that, there is no necessity for her TO produce any document regarding completion of probation period, since her probation was already declared while she was in service in the Raichur Institute of Medical Science, Raichur. Thereafter, a notification dtd. 21/5/2015, was issued by respondent No.2 calling for applications to fill up the post of Associate Professors in Physiology. Challenging the said notification, the petitioner had approached this Court in WP No.106848 of 2015. In the said writ petition, this Court, on 8/7/2015, had stayed the operation and implementation of the notification dtd. 21/5/2015 insofar as it relates to the subject Physiology.