IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT PETITION NOS.845 - 865 OF 2014 (EDN/MED-ADM) BETWEEN:
1. DR. BHEEMRAYA D.
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA DEVARAMANE AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
2. DR. GIRISH PUTTANNAVAR SON OF N. N. PUTTANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
3. DR. ANAND PATIL SON OF MAHADEVA GOWDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
4. DR. SWAMY VIVEKANANDA SON OF GIRIMALLAPPA HARWAL AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
5. DR. RAGHAVENDRA B.
SON OF BEERALINGAPPA P. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
6. DR. ROOPA B. N. WIFE OF ASHOK C.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
7. DR. R. SANDHYA DAUGHTER OF R. RAMUDU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
8. DR. SHOBHA RANI DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANA K. N. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
9. DR. SHRUTHI DAS SHETTY DAUGHTER OF DR. D. G. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
10. DR. MAHABOOB BASHA S. K. SON OF ELAHI S. K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
11. DR. YASHAVANTHI H. S. DAUGHTER OF SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 12. DR. REKHA S.
WIFE OF KISHORE KUMAR K. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
13. DR. CHAITRA C. S.
DAUGHTER OF K. SWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 14. DR. THARAKESHWARI B. S. DAUGHTER OF D. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
15. DR. BALAGI D.
SON OF R. DHANANJAYAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
16. DR. NAGATHANOOJ SON OF S. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
17. DR. SURESH B. N. SON OF NATARAJA. B AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
18. DR. THEJASWINI DAUGHTER OF PUTTARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 19. DR. VIDYASHREE J. B. DAUGHTER OF BASAPPA J. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 20. DR. ROOPESH SON OF CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 21. DR. SHYAM SUNDER SON OF LATE G. S. SHVIANNA AGD ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE SERVING AS INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICERS EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MEDICAL EDUCATION), NEW DELHI – 110 002.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ESIC, HEADQUARTERS CIG MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002.
3. THE MEDICAL COMMISSIONER MEDICAL BRANCI IV ESIC, HEADQUARTERS, CIG MARG NEW DELHI - 110 002.
4. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT ESIC MODEL HOSPITAL RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.
5. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION ANSARI NAGAR, RING ROAD NEW DELHI - 110 029.
6. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
7. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
8. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 001. (REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR) 9. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V. KRISHNA, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;
SMT. M.P. GEETHADEVI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4;
SRI SANDESH J. CHOCUTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5;
SRI N. DINESH RAO, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 8; SRI SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.9) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AMENDMENT OF RULE 10 OF THE KARNATAKA PGET RULES 2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, DATED 23.11.2013 IN RESPECT OF ENHANCING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FROM 3 YEARS OF SERVICE TO 5 YEARS OF SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PG ENTRANCE TEST.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioners is to quash the amendment to Rule 10 of the Karnataka PGTE Rules 2013. In terms thereof, the eligibility criteria was enhanced from three years to five years of service for the purposes of PG entrance test for in service quota and consequential reliefs and an interim order was granted by this Court on 29.01.2014 permitting the petitioners to apply for the aforesaid examination provided they have completed three years of service. Pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners have written the examination, got admission and even completed the course. Therefore, the petitioners’ counsel submits that nothing further requires to be considered in these petitions and that the challenge to the said Rule is only for academic purpose.
2. Heard Sri N. Dinesh Rao, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 8.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we do not find any ground to hear this matter on merits. The petitioners have written the entrance examination, got admitted and even completed the course. Therefore, only in academic interest, the prayer to quash the amendment to Rule 10 of the Karnataka PGTE Rules 2013 is to be considered.
4. Under these circumstances, the petitions are disposed off. However, it is made clear that the relief obtained by the petitioners in these petitions in terms of the interim order and all subsequent benefits shall not be reversed by the State. The present order of disposal of these petitions shall stand restricted only insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA