Ravindra P.N. vs Vidya Mohan Nadiger and Others

B.S. Patil, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 105509/2014. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the selection of the appellant herein as Profession in Physiology in the 3rd respondent/Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag. A direction is issued to the Secretary to Health Department, Government of Karnataka, to take appropriate steps to fill up the said post at the earliest. In addition to the above two directions, the learned Single Judge has held that there was an attempt on the part of the Director for Medical Education/2nd respondent herein by name Sri S.S. Harasur and the erstwhile Director of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, by name Sri M.C. Chandru, to somehow insert the name of appellant/4th respondent in the writ petition to show that he had attended the walk-in-interview though there was nothing on record to demonstrate that he had appeared for the interview before the panel constituted for selecting candidates for Gadag Institute for the post of Physiology.

The learned Single Judge has inferred that the entire procedure followed was shrouded in mystery with involvement of Dr. S.S. Harasur and Dr. M.C. Chandm. While making these observations, the learned Single Judge also found it fit to issue a direction to the Secretary to Health Department to conduct an enquiry into the appointment of the 4th respondent who claimed to have attended the interview and was appointed for the post of Professor in Physiology in Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag.

We may also notice here that the learned Single Judge persuaded himself to direct initiation of contempt proceeding against the Director for Medical Education in misguiding the Court stating that he was not in custody of documents and thereafter sending those documents through the 2nd respondent for which he was liable to be proceeded against for having committed contempt of court.

This matter was heard for sometime earlier when it came up for preliminary hearing. On 01.04.2015, when this matter was posted before this Court, an interim order was passed directing that the findings of the enquiry initiated as directed by the learned Judge shall be placed before this Court by 15.04.2015 and till the next date of hearing, there shall be stay of further steps to be taken for fresh recruitment to the post in question. Pursuant to this direction, the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education has held an enquiry and has placed before us the report of the enquiry.

In the said report, it is stated that six new Medical Colleges at Koppal, Gadag, Madikeri, Karwar, Gulbarga and Chamarajanagar districts were established during the year 2013-2014, interviews were held on 24.02.2014, 25.02.2014 and 26.02.2014 for filling up of various teaching posts for the new six autonomous Medical Colleges. Walk-in-interview for all the teaching posts was held based on eligibility criteria as per the Medical Council of India requirements and the bye-laws of the Institute. In the report of the Principal Secretary, at paragraph 4, it is stated as under:

"4. Xxx xxx it was decided to conduct walk interview at the same wing for all the six new medical colleges namely, at the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) Office building, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, in order to make it convenient to all concerned."

The report further makes it clear that, the Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, had conducted interview on 26.02.2014 and the number of doctors attended the interview were larger than actually anticipated. A decision was taken by the interview panel that the candidate applying for the same subject need not attend the interview before all the six panels. The candidate willing to take the post even in other places was asked to face the interview in one place and if, he was further willing he could register for consideration in other places. A log-book was maintained to register the names conveying preference of places for consideration. The same interview marks for the ''same subject for same post would be considered for the other places based on his/her preference''. Having said so, the Secretary has placed before the Court the details of total number of candidates who appeared for the post of Professor in Physiology and the details of marks obtained by them before different interview panels, namely for Koppal, Gadag, Madikeri, Karwar, Gulbarga and Chamarajanagar.

It is stated in the report that 4th respondent/Dr. Ravindar was registered with Registration No. 126. He had also registered in Gadag and other places whereas the Writ Petitioner Dr. Vidya Nadgir, who had also registered in the same Register Log Book at Sl. No. 409 appeared before the Gadag Interview Panel whereas Dr. Ravindra appeared before the Koppal interview panel. A common merit list of all institutes was prepared. As per the report of Principal Secretary, Dr. Ravindra and Dr. Vidya Nadgir, who had applied for the post of Professor in Physiology at Gadag Institute were awarded marks as under:

It is in this background, the report submitted by the Secretary disclosed that the appointment letter was issued to the selected candidate Dr. Ravindra in Physiology and to other candidates in different subjects. It is also stated therein that the matter was later placed before the Governing Council of the Institute concerned for ratification of the appointment and therefore there was no error in placing respondent No. 4 as a selected candidate for Gadag Institute because he topped the merit list and had given preference for the post of Professor in Physiology at Gadag Institute.

So far the writ petitioner was concerned, though she had appeared before the Gadag Panel which interviewed her, she had not given preference to any other institute. The Principal Secretary has made it clear that, in view of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, appointment of Dr. Ravindra as Professor of Physiology had been cancelled and steps had been initiated notifying the post and calling for applications afresh. In the opinion of the Principal Secretary, the confusion arose because the panel decided to conduct interview for all six medical colleges and the candidates were enabled to appear before the interview panel. Based on the common merit list and depending on the preference given by the candidates the selection was made. The Principal Secretary has therefore opined that there was no mala fides on the part of either Dr. S.S. Harasur or Sri M.C. Chandru and no preference was given to the appellant in respect of the post of Professor in Physiology.

Along with the report, the Principal Secretary has enclosed relevant documents, particularly, the provisional selection list for the post of Professor in Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, in respect of different subjects including Physiology, final select list for the post of Professors in respect of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, for various subjects including Physiology, extract of the log register maintained containing the names of the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent along with several others and the details of marks obtained in the walk-in-interview for various subjects prepared by the Koppal Institute of Medical Sciences, Koppal, etc.,

Having heard the learned counsel at length and on a careful perusal of the entire materials on record including the enquiry report submitted by the Principal Secretary, we find that the confusion has occurred because of the decision said to have been taken to allow the candidates to face walk-in-interview before any of the panel of interview constituted for the six colleges and to make the selection based on the marks awarded by any one of the panel for ascertaining the merit of the candidate not only for the concerned institute where he has faced the interview but also for the other institute for which he/she had given preference in the application. It is in this background, the appellant-Dr. Ravindra having faced the interview before the interview panel constituted for Koppal Institute, the marks obtained by him have been considered for the purpose of selecting and appointing him for the post of Professor in Physiology in Gadag Institute although he had not appeared before the interview panel constituted for Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag.

The writ petitioner had, no doubt, appeared before the interview panel meant for Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, but had obtained lesser marks compared to the marks awarded to the appellant-Dr. Ravindra. This procedure has been followed for selecting and appointing all the candidates who had applied for different posts. Therefore, there is no reason to infer or believe that only in the case of writ petitioner, a procedure shrouded in mystery was adopted. There is also no reason to doubt the role played by the Director of Medical Education or the erstwhile Director of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate, neither the Director of Medical Education nor the erstwhile Director of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, can be found guilty of any lapse.

However, fact remains that there is no proceeding placed before the Court that a decision had been taken to adopt a procedure whereunder even if a candidate had appeared before one interview panel and had not appeared before the other interview panels, the marks obtained by him in the interview panel before which he had appeared would be considered for his selection to the post of Professor in Physiology in any of the Colleges for which six different panels were constituted. Indeed, the notification dated 03.02.2014 issued by the Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, inviting applications to various posts including the post of Professor in Physiology or for that matter, the notification issued calling for applications by any other Colleges does not mention that such a procedure would be adopted. Infact, different dates of interview were indeed given by different Colleges. Therefore, before adopting such a procedure, there should have been a proper method followed. No resolution is placed before the Court to show that all the institutes along with the authorities competent to participate in the process of selection had jointly decided to adopt such a procedure. Nothing is produced to show that the candidates had been informed well in advance about such a procedure having been adopted. Therefore, it is clear that the procedure adopted was illegal.

As we are concerned with the post of Professor in Physiology, the observations that we are making is only with respect to Physiology and not in respect of selection already made in respect of other posts in different Colleges as we do not wish to upset things which have been settled.

Therefore, while we hold that the learned Single Judge was right and justified in setting aside the appointment of the 4th respondent/appellant herein for the post of Professor in Physiology, the further direction given to proceed with the recruitment to the post afresh is also right and justified. However, the process has to be continued by conducting fresh interview for the post of Physiology in Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences and not by calling for fresh applications. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the grievance made by the appellant against the said direction issued by the learned Single Judge.

Indeed, the report of the Principal Secretary reveals that the Government has issued direction to the Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, to fill the post afresh.

However, as we have already made it clear neither the Director of Medical Education nor the Director of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, can be found fault with in the confusion that has been created. The comments and observations made by the learned Single Judge against these two Officers and the direction issued for initiating contempt against the Director deserve to be set aside.

We are also convinced by the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate that the relevant papers were sent by the Director of Medical Education through the Director, Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, who was at Bangalore at that time to personally hand them over to the learned Government Advocate for being placed before the Court and it is in that background, the papers were seen enveloped in the envelop belonging to the Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag. Hence, we do not find any other illegality or intention to withhold relevant information from the Court or make false submission before the Court. Therefore, in our view, it may not be appropriate to initiate contempt proceedings against the Director of Medical Education.

In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ appeal is partly allowed. The adverse comments and observations made against Sri S.S. Harasur, Director for Medical Education and Sri M.C. Chandru, Director of Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences, Gadag, and the direction issued to initiate contempt against the Director of Medical Education are set aside. We also hold that the respondents have to hold fresh interview for the post of Professor in Physiology in Gadag Institute of Medical Sciences based on the application already filed, in accordance with law and make appointment to the post strictly following the procedure prescribed. Ordered accordingly.