SRINIVAS KOSGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in Department of Psychiatry under the third respondent Institution on 24th February 2012 as per Notification dated 14th March 2011 and he has joined the third respondent-Institution on 12th March 2012. The petitioner has completed the probationary period on 11th March 2014 after completing the Departmental Examination. The respondent has issued notification calling for application for selection and appointment to the post of Professor in Psychiatry. The petitioner applied for the same. But no selection was made in pursuance of Notifications dated 14th March 2011 and 20th December 2013 and as such the petitioner working as Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry.

(2.) In the meanwhile the post of Medical Superintendent fell vacant due to retirement of the occupant on attaining superannuation. As per the Government circular dated 20th November 2012 and as well as the Common Cadre and Recruitment Rules, the post of Medical Superintendent in teaching Hospitals should be filled by eligible professor cadre candidates from the same institute fulfilling the administrative experience of ten years. The petitioner was aspirant to get appointment as Medical Superintendent in view of the fact he satisfied the requirement as per Common Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the third respondent. Though he is eligible and qualified, in contravention of the same, the respondents No.1 to 3 have considered the case of fourth respondent and appointed him as Medical Superintendent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the same.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed the post graduation in the year 2006 and he has got appointed in the third respondent in the year 2012. To fill up the post of Medical Superintendent the Common Cadre and Recruitment Rules require that one should posses Graduation in Medical Science from the recognized University with ten years of administrative experience. For the purpose of ten years of administrative experience, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has served in various capacities from the date of his appointment and accordingly, he satisfies the said condition. With regard to the experience, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has produced Annexure-B, the certificate dated 1st March 2006 issued by K.S. Hedge Medical Academy, Mangalore stating that the petitioner was working as Tutor on a teaching post for two years after passing Diploma in Psychiatry from 27th February 2004 to 26th February 2006 in the Department of Psychiatry of the said Institution. The petitioner has also produced Annexure-D dated 29th March 2011, which is also issued from K.S. Hegde Medical Academy certifying that the petitioner worked as Tutor in the Institution from 27th February 2006 to 30th September 2006 and as Assistant Professor from 1st October 2006 till the date of issuance of the said certificate. Petitioner has also produced Official Memorandum Annexure-E dated 24th February 2012 issued by the third respondent appointing the petitioner as Associate Professor in Psychiatry and as such he is working till today. Considering the petitioner's experience certificate, the learned counsel submits that this satisfies the required condition of Common Cadre and Recruitment Rules for the purpose of experience and for the purpose of academic requirement. In addition to this qualification and experience, the petitioner is a person belonging to the third respondent and hence, he should have been considered for promotion to the post of Medical Superintendent. Contrary to the same, the respondents No.1 to 3 appointed the fourth respondent whose parent department is Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of Karnataka and has been taken on deputation which is impermissible. In order to fortify his submissions, the learned counsel referred to Writ Petitions No.16904-17092 of 2011 disposed of on 03rd June 2011 wherein it has been held that the post in teaching hospitals should be filled by the eligible candidates from the same institution and not on deputation. Further, it is submitted that the fourth respondent, though he possesses the post graduation much later to the petitioner who completed post graduation in the year 2012 and got lesser experience compared to the petitioner, has been taken on deputation to the third respondent-Institution. Secondly, he is not the employee of the third respondent and is the employee of the Government of Karnataka. He also does not possess the requisite experience as is possessed by the petitioner. Hence he prays that under the circumstance, the appointment of the fourth respondent is to be set aside and the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment to the post of Medical Superintendent.