K S SUNITHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. KS. Sunitha is the petitioner in W. P. No. 14437 of 2005 and Dr. A. Padmaja is the petitioner in W. P. No. 14438 of 2005. Both the petitioners are holders of MBBS degree and they were appointed as medical Officers by an order dated 25-7-1997 issued by the Government of Karnataka pursuant to selection made by the Karnataka Public service Commission. They had joined the services of the State on a KLJ PUBLICATION 13-8-1997 and 14-8-1997 respectively The petitioners participated in the Post-graduate Entrance Test 2005 held on 6-2-2005 Dr KS sunitha secured 139 marks in the Entrance Test out of 200 marks while dr A Padmaja secured 118 marks out of 200 Both of them appeared for the counselling on 21-4-2005 Dr K S Sunitha was allotted post-graduate seat m MS OBG though she wanted a seat in MD radiology Dr A Padmaja secured a seat for the study of MD anaesthesralogy though her first choice was MS OBG

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the respondent-authontres have made gross violation of the law declared by the Apex Court m State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v Gopal D Thirtham and Others and the Medical Council of India Regulations while prepanng the merit list for medical faculty for in-service candidates as per Annexure-E It is contended that because of the violation of the law while preparing the ment list the candidates who were ranked much below in the rank list prepared on the basis of entrance test were pushed to higher ranks therefore, the petitioners could not secure a seat in the speciality of their choice Dr K S Sunitha had contended that she has secured 4th rank in the entrance test conducted by the respondent-University whereas, the Dr Mythreesha, the 3rd respondent had secured 133rd rank However, in the revised rank list prepared on the day of counselling, she was pushed down to 6th rank and Dr Mythreesha was pushed upto 3rd rank Thus, Dr Mythreesha secured a creamy and coveted seat m M D Radiology discipline The petitioner had no other option but to opt for a seat in M S OBG Similar is the plea of Dr A padmaja, the petitioner in the connected writ petition Therefore, the petitioners have filed these wnt petitions for quashing the official memorandum beanng No HFW 399 HSH 2005 issued by the first respondent (Annexure-F), insofar as it allots MD Course in the discipline of Radiology to the 3rd respondent at the 4th respondent-college m the first wnt petition and allotment of seat m ms OBG to 3rd and 4th respondents in the second wnt petition at the 5th and 6th respondents-colleges respectively and for certain other relief

(3.) THE respondent-University has filed its objections It is contended that the petitioners are in-service Doctors selected for the study of post-graduate degree course for the academic year 2005-06 in the in service quota Since the petitioners are Government employees, they cannot maintain wnt petitions They have to approach the Karnataka administrative Tribunal for suitable relief It is further contended that the petitioners were informed well m advance the procedure for selection to the course and having participated m the selection process and having selected seats in the available discipline and joined the courses, they cannot now turn round and challenge the selection process It is further contended that the selection process is completed by the university and at this belated stage they cannot find fault with the selection process It is further contended that the University has adopted a uniform procedure for selection of the in-service candidates the selection has been made as per the Government Order dated 18-1-2005 The selected candidates have already joined their courses and are pursuing their studies and that they are not parties to these proceedings