STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. D N NAGALAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the respondent is that she was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan dt. 26.11.1997. In 1999 she applied to the post of Asst. Surgeon (General Duty Medical Officer). In the select list in the notification dt.19.5.2000 her name did not find a place. That the selection list has been prepared after giving rural weightage marks to the eligible candidates as per Rule 3B of the KCS (General Recruitment) Rules. The said Rule 3B was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.13157/1998 where Rule 3B has been quashed and upheld by the Division Bench and by the Hon. Supreme Court. That inspite of quashing Rule 3B, the selection list was prepared in terms of Rule 3B itself. While allowing the petitions, the Learned Single Judge directed those appointments which are already been made in accordance with the rule would not be disturbed. In Appeal, the Division Bench granted an Interim order to the effect that the selections/appointments made thereafter would be subject to the decision of the Appeal and other consequential orders. While affirming the view of the Learned Single Judge, the Division Bench directed that those persons who had been appointed during the pendency of appeal till the date of the decision of the Division Bench would continue. Thereafter, the Government reviewed its earlier stand and by Circular dt.12.8.2003 directed that the select lists made subsequent to 1998 based on rural weightage marks be revised by excluding the candidates who had been appointed only on the basis of rural weightage marks and to re -do the list. It further directed that steps should be taken to remove such of the candidates who had been appointed on the basis of rural weightage marks, but who were otherwise not entitled to be selected and to include on the basis of the marks. In furtherance of the said circular, the list of candidate selected for appointment 573 posts were revised and the revised list was published. The name of the respondent was shown at Sl.No.289 On that basis she was appointed by the notification dt.16.2.2004 as a General Duty Medical officer on probation and accordingly she reported for duty at the Primary Health Centre, Honnavar. By the order dt.12.10.2006 it was declared that she has satisfactorily completed the period of probation w.e.f. 20.2.2006. She made a representation on 8.12.2006 that she had been unjustifiably deprived in the select list of the year 2000. The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Bangalore replied that she is not entitled to the benefit claimed by her. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the instant application to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order partly allowed the application. It held that the prayer to quash clause (c) of the Circular dt.2.7.2003 was rejected. But held that a direction in the said circulars to treat the appointments only prospectively does not apply to the applicant, granting the following reliefs:

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the State has filed the present petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the relief granted by the Tribunal is beyond what was asked by the respondent. That the relief granted by the Tribunal and holding that the direction in the said Circular to treat the appointment only prospectively is inappropriate. That to prepone the date of appointment of the applicant from 16.2.2004 to 23.6.2000 and consequently prepone the date of completion of period of probation is incorrect. That the grant of difference of salary to the respondent is also incorrect. Hence she prays, the petition be allowed.