SHIVASHANKARAPPA MUDEGOUDAR Vs. K A ARVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 28th october, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 10557 of 2006 which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge. The appellant was the 4th respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the 1st respondent herein.

(2.) AS per Annexure-'a' notification dated 7-6-2006, Rajiv gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka (Respondent No. 2 herein) invited applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the Entrance Test for Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses (Medical Faculty) for the academic year 2006-07. One of the institutions mentioned in Annexure-'a' is the Bangalore Medical college, Bangalore where courses in M. Ch (Plastic Surgery) and M. Ch (Urology) Courses are offered, In Note (A) in the notification, it is specified that "karnataka Government in-service candidates should also appear for Entrance Test". In Note (B), it is stated that "admission to the Courses is subject to the admission rules of the Government of karnataka". According to Clause 1 (f), in-service doctors should apply through proper channel and also should furnish the information whether any enquiry is pending against him/her and whether he/she is under suspension/unauthorised absence.

(3.) THE appellant who is a member of the Karnataka Government health and Family Welfare Service and who was then working on deputation as Senior Specialist, Department of Urology in Vijaynagar institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary, applied for appearance in the entrance Test and sought admission to M. Ch (Urology) Course. The first respondent who was then employed as Assistant Professor of general Surgery in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli which is an autonomous institution run by the Government of Karnataka also applied for appearance in the Entrance Test and sought admission to M. Ch (Urology) Course. Both of them had applied for admission in the 'in-service' quota. As per Annexure-'f'-Provisional Marks List published by the second respondent University the appellant got 57 marks and the first respondent got 66 marks. But in Annexure-'h' list of Candidates selected under the In-service quota, the appellant's name was shown as the candidate selected for admission to M. Ch (Urology) and the first respondent's name was shown in the Waiting List