SUMA G.K. D/O. K.D. JANAGI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LABOUR DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for the following reliefs, in this writ petition:

(2.) THE State Government by notification dated 8.12.2006 issued the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). In terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, out of the total number of seats available for in -service candidates, 15% of the seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 3% of the seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner filed an application for admission to P.G. Course as in -service doctor for PGET under the quota reserved for ESI Department. Based on the marks secured in the entrance test, the third respondent issued a selection list consisting of 20 doctors for consideration to the seats reserved for ESI in -service candidates. 5th respondent issued notification on 9.4.2009 determining seat matrix and fees structure for the Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses in Government and Private Medical Colleges for the academic year 2009 -10. Copy of the notification dated 9.4.2009 is produced at Annexure -F to the writ petition. The records further reveal that 30% of seats are ear -marked for in -service candidates, and out of the same 10% of Post Graduate Medical Degree seats are reserved for doctors of ESI Department. Pursuant to reservation of 10% of the seats for in -service candidates from amongst ESI Department, the seat matrix was published in the internet for the Post Graduate Entrance Test, 2009 counselling. Seat matrix is produced at Annexures -G, G1, and G2 to the writ petition. A perusal of Annexure -G series makes it. clear that out of 12 seats which constitute 10% of in -service seats meant for ESI Department, 10 seats are allotted for General Merit Category and 2 seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes. No seat is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. No seat can be reserved for Scheduled Tribe this year as even one seat fells short of 3% of the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. In the first round of counselling held on 15.4.2009, 10 seats under General Merit Category and one seat under Scheduled Caste Category have been filled up. However, another seat reserved for Scheduled Caste Category has not been filled up. The petitioner made representation to the respondents to convert the seat reserved for Schedule Caste Category in to the reservation quota of Schedule Tribe Category, in view of non -availability of Schedule Caste candidate. The said representation is not considered by the respondents, Hence, this writ petition is filed praying for the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) THE prayer of the petitioner is that as one seat is available for Scheduled Caste Category has remained unfilled, the same shall be allotted to another reserved category, i.e., Scheduled Tribe Category. Petitioner relies upon the Government Order bearing No. DPAR 28 SBC 86, dated 12.12.1986, in support, of the said contention. Clause 9 of the said order reveals that in case if the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste Category is not available, the same shall be filled from out of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category. Relying upon the said Clause, the petitioner vehemently submits that the seat available for Scheduled Caste Category shall be allotted to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category. The said submission is opposed by Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Sri B. Manohar, learned Government Advocate. According to Sri N.K. Ramesh, one seat reserved for Schedule Caste Category has remained unfilled because of the interim order granted by this Court and the same will be filled in second round of counselling from among the Scheduled Caste candidates as the Schedule Caste candidates are still available for consideration. The respondents point out that the Government Order dated 12.12.1986, referred to above, only deals with the reservation at the time of appointment and promotions and the same does not deal with the selection of the candidates during their educational career. Respondents further rely upon the subsequent Government Order, bearing No. DPAR 19 SBC 89, dated 12.7.1989, to contend that if the Scheduled Caste candidate is not available on a particular year of selection, the same shall be treated as backlog vacancy and such backlog vacancy may continue for three years.