IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR REVIEW PETITION No.744/2015 c/w WRIT APPEAL No.72/2014 (S-RES) IN REVIEW PETITION No.744/2015 BETWEEN:
DR. RASHMI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKING AS CASUALTY MEDICAL OFFICER, AT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE – 560 002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, FORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-CUM-DEARN.
3. DR. NAZARULLA BABAJAN MAJOR BY AGE, 4. DR. N. PRIYADARSHINI MAJOR BY AGE, 5. DR. HINA KHALEEL MAJOR BY AGE, 6. DR. ANIL KUMAR MAJOR BY AGE, SL. NOS.3 TO 6 ARE WORKING AS CASUALTY MEDICAL OFFICERS AT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE – 560 002.
7. DR. (SMT.) K.B. GEETHA W/O. DR. MANJU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, LAGGERE, BANGALORE AND R/AT NO. 601, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE – 560 018. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI M., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***** THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29/09/2015 PASSED IN W.A.NO.6545/2013 (S- RES), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
IN WRIT APPEAL No.72/2014 BETWEEN:
BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 002.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR - CUM- DEAN. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR. (SMT.) K.B. GEETHA W/O. DR. MANJU PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, LAGGERE, BANGALORE AND R/AT NO.60.1, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE – 560 018.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. DR. NAZARULLA BABAJAN, MAJOR BY AGE 4. DR. N. PRIYADARSHINI, MAJOR BY AGE 5. DR. HINA KHALEEL, MAJOR BY AGE 6. DR. ANIL KUMAR, MAJOR BY AGE, 7. DR. K.N. SHANKAR, MAJOR BY AGE 8. DR. RASHMI, MAJOR BY AGE SL.NOS.3 TO 8 ARE WORKING AS CASUALTY MEDICAL OFFICERS AT BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BANGALORE – 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. JYOTHI M., AGA FOR R-2; SRI V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; NOTICE TO R-3, R-5 TO R-7 – DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 30/09/2015) ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31078/2010 DATED 26/03/2012.
THIS REVIEW PETITION AND WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Though this review petition and writ appeal are listed by special orders for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are taken up for consideration finally.
2. R.P.No.744/2015 has been filed by Dr.Rashmi, assailing the judgment dated 29/09/2015 passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.6545/2013. By the said judgment, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26/03/2012 in W.P.No.31078/2012 was affirmed and the writ appeal was dismissed.
3. W.A.No.72/2014 has been filed by the Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute [hereinafter, referred to as “the Institute”], assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26/03/2012 in W.P.No.31078/2010.
4. Thus, in both these matters, in substance, there is a challenge made to the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner Dr.K.P.Geeetha, submits that the writ petitioner intends to withdraw the writ petition itself and that a memo has been filed in that regard yesterday. He submits that the writ petitioner does not wish to pursue the writ petition and hence, she may be permitted to withdraw W.P.No.31078/2010. He further submits that if the permission to withdraw the writ petition is granted by this Court, then the appointment made by the Institute would not call for any interference and such of the respondents who are serving in the Institute pursuant to the appointment order issued by the Institute could continue in employment.
6. Learned counsel for review petitioner – Dr.Rashmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Institute, learned counsel for respondent No.4 – Dr.N.Priyadarshini, and learned Govt. Advocate submit in unison that they have no objection to Dr.Geetha, the original petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It is also stated at the Bar as to why she is withdrawing the writ petition which is on account of her being appointed as an Associate Professor in Forensic Medicine in a Medical College and therefore, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that she is not interested in the matter any longer.
7. Submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner and submission of learned counsel for other parties is placed on record.
8. In the circumstances, writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn and the order dated 26/03/2012 in W.P.No.31078/2010 is recalled. Consequently, the judgment dated 29/09/2015 in W.A.No.6545/2013 is also recalled. Notification dated 09/10/2009 and the appointment of the Doctors pursuant to the Notification issued by the Institute are held to be legal and valid.
9. Accordingly, R.P.No.744/2015 and W.A.No.72/2014 are disposed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs Sd/- JUDGE