K.B. GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be a Medical Officer working in the department of Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) of the State Government. The State Government by its notification dated 21.11.2011, had notified Post -Graduate Entrance Test 2012 for the purpose of determining the eligibility for admission of students to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Medical subjects and Post Graduate Degree and Diploma courses in Dental subjects in Government colleges and Government seats in Private Medical and Dental colleges during the year 2012 -13. The test was said to have been conducted in accordance with the Ordinance governing the conduct of Entrance Test for admission to Post -graduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses, 2012. The last date for filling up the online application in terms of the Notification was 31.12.2011. The petitioner had filed her application and was found eligible to take up the entrance test and after addition of the weightage marks for the service rendered by her in the State Government, she was ranked at Serial No. 262. The first round of counselling was said to have been held on 17.5.2012, in which the petitioner had participated and was allotted a Diploma seat in Forensic Medicine. Pursuant to which, there was a demand for Rs. 3,35,000/ -, which was also paid by the petitioner along with her original certificates which were seven in number. The counselling was said to have been held on 17.5.2012. However, the same was stayed by an order of this court in a writ petition in WP 16337 -49/2012 and connected cases. That batch of writ petitions was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this court on 8.6.2012, directing holding of re -counselling on or before 15.6.2012, which order was challenged before a division bench of this court and the judgment was affirmed by the division bench in WP 2978 -86/2012. In terms of the order passed by the division bench of this court, the petitioner was recounselled in the second round of counselling on 13.8.2012. The petitioner was informed at about 3.30 p.m., that there were only limited seats available which included 'Bacteriology'. She was told that a particular seat would be blocked for her if she agreed to it and she was told to move to the next table to collect the allotment letter. The petitioner claims that she was asked to sign on the dotted line of the allotment letter dated 13.8.2012. The said letter carried the following declaration:

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate would vehemently oppose the petition and would contend that firstly, the very writ petition is not maintainable as what has been challenged is the communication dated 3.9.2013, which was based on the Government Order dated 22.1.2013 and in the absence of any challenge to the Government Order dated 22.1.2013, which is at Annexure R.1 to the Statement of Objections, the petition ought to be rejected at the threshold. It is secondly contended that the penalty that has been paid is paid to the university and not to the State Government. This was in consideration of the University retaining the original certificates and not as penalty paid to the State Government. The penalty that is payable by the petitioner is Rs. 2,50,000/ - as this is the penalty fixed in respect of the Diploma course not being taken up. The learned Government Pleader would further contend that such conduct on the part of the petitioner would deprive another deserving candidate of a seat, which goes vacant on account of the seat being reverted to the management. He would further contend that in view of the petitioner having categorically undertaken to pay a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/ - in the event she did not join the course, it would not be available for the petitioner to contend that she is not liable to pay the penalty and the petitioner is estopped from doing so. The petitioner ought to have obtained prior permission from the Government in having joined yet another course and therefore, even if the petitioner is to -be considered for any relief, it should be left open for the respondents to take action in respect of such misconduct on her part in not having obtained permission from the State Government.