IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.3149 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. B.J. VEDAAVATHI WIFE OF DR. V. RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.497, 8TH MAIN, WEST WING, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071.
(BY SRI PUTTIGE R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
...APPELLANT 1. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
2. DR. T. VENKATESH (THE APPELLANT IS NOT AWARE OF THE NAME OF FATHER DR. VENKATESH) AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MEDICAL OFFICER, PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION CELL, BBMP, POBBATTI MATERNATY HOME, NEAR SAJJAN RAO CIRCLE, VISHWESHWARAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 004.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RANGANATH R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M.R. RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.22087 OF 2019 (S-RES) AND ALLOW WRIT PETITION NO.22087 OF 2019 (S-RES) AS PRAYED FOR TO MEET THE ENDS JUSTICE.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22087 of 2019, dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. That the undisputed fact is that respondent no.2 has acquired the post-graduation, therefore he cannot continue in the Health Wing and requires to be allocated to the Clinical Wing. That the learned Single Judge failed to consider the law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court DR.IBRAHIM KHALEEL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR 3359.
3. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
5. The learned Single Judge, while considering the case of the petitioner was of the view that there is no provision in the Rules of Recruitment, that if a Medical Officer of Health acquires any Post Graduation qualification, in such an event, such Medical Officer of Health is required to be shifted to the Clinical Wing. To this extent, we have gone through the relevant rules, mode of recruitment etc. None of them provide as to the contingency of a Medical Officer of Health acquiring a post- graduation during his tenure. The Rules do not postulate what is the contingency of an employee acquiring a post- graduation during service. Therefore, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The further contention is that having acquired a post-graduation, the service of the petitioner would be more required in the Clinical Wing, rather than in the Health Wing. We are of the view that it is not necessary for us to go into this question. It is for the State to consider as to whether the Rules require to be amended when at the cost of the Government, an employee acquires a post- graduation while in service. Therefore, even if the post-
graduation is acquired, the Rules do not permit any change at all.
7. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DR.IBRAHIM KHALEEL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR 3359, we are of the view that the same is misplaced and has no nexus to the facts of the instant case herein.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-