T PRATHAP Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these cases have sought for a declaration that the service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service on contract basis granted by the Government Order bearing No HFW 470 mps 2004, dated 18-1-2005 (Annexure-B to the writ petitions) by the clause reading "in case of service rendered as contract Doctors, the service weightage so admissible shall be 4 marks for every completed one year of service" is illegal and unconstitutional

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows.-The petitioners are aspirants for admission to Post-graduate Medical and Dental and Diploma Courses for the academic year 2005-06. They are in-service candidates prescribed under the Rules governing admission. They have taken the Entrance Test as in-service candidates. The 1st petitioner though a Medical Officer in the services of the government of Karnataka has taken the test as an open category candidate since he does not fall within the definition of 'in-service candidate' prescribed under the Rules governing admissions. They are aggrieved by the impugned Government Order providing for a service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service rendered as Contract Doctor. It is further contended that during the year 1992, pending direct recruitment as per Rules, as a stopgap arrangement, 380 doctors were appointed on contract basis by the State Government. Applications were invited at the District level stipulating that the appointment is on contract basis, the appointees will not have any claim for regularisation or regular appointment and they will not be entitled to any emoluments except a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The appointments were on contract basis terminable at any time and the period of contract was stipulated as three years. Their appointment was purely contractual and no merited candidate applied in response. When the said Doctors were working on contract basis, in response to the Notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in the year 1995 most of these doctors working on contract basis also applied and failed to get a place in the select list due to their low merit. When the provisional select list was published in the year 1996 the contract doctors finding that most of them have failed to make it to the select list moved the Government for regularisation of their services and that their services regularised as per the Notification dated 24-7-1997. The Rules under which regularisation was made as also the regularisation notification clearly stipulated that the services rendered on contract basis will not count for any purpose. Similar regularisation exercise was made by another notification dated 7-12-1999. It is alleged that the Government went on to accommodate the contract doctors is evident from the fact that while the candidates who came to be selected on their merit pursuant to the applications invited by the Karnataka public Service Commission (for short, 'kpsc'), in the year 1995, interviews held and provisional list and select list published in the year 1996 were appointed only on 25-7-1997 and the contract Doctors who failed to get selected in the KPSC selection and who had been appointed on contract basis without any screening and without any selection were given regular appointments with effect from 9-6-1997 by a Notification dated 24-7-1997. The very same misplaced benevolence in favour of contract doctors is evident from the impugned Government Order dated 18-1-2005. The petitioners have urged that no weightage can be given for a period when the candidates could not be said to be in-service. The contract doctors are not members of service when the appointment on contract is contrary to the Statutory Recruitment Rules. It is not in substantive capacity Therefore, giving service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year service on contract basis as per the government Notification dated 18-1-2005 is contrary to law

(3.) RESPONDENTS 4 to 6 were the contract doctors whose services have been regularised subsequently They have filed impleading application which was allowed by this Court It is contended by them that they were recruited as Doctors on contract basis and subsequently they were absorbed as regular doctors Initially, they were recruited and posted to rural areas Recruitment was made by the Directorate of Health and family Welfare and a merit list was prepared and selection was made by following roster and recruitment Rules which were framed at the said point of time were strictly followed Thereafter, they were absorbed on permanent basis Recognising their rural service during their contract period, the Government has granted weightage of 4 points The petitioners cannot find fault with the same