The State of Karnataka and The Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare Services vs Dr. Shanthala K.S. and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short ''Tribunal'') dated 5.2.2010 passed in. Application No. 4656/2008 and other connected applications, wherein the Tribunal has directed to implement the corrigendum dated 10.1.2007 by treating the period of service with effect from the initial appointment of the applicants with rural weightage till their termination as regular service for purpose of selection and admission to post graduate and diploma courses under the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Teat for Selection and Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006 and also to consider the representation of the applicants and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of the order considering the entitlement of the w.e.f. 1.1.2004 by granting the said date of 1.1.2004 as deemed date of absorption and grant all consequential benefits thereof.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties.

The following facts are not in dispute in. these writ petition :

The Government in exercise of powers vested u/s 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short ''Rules'') a provision was made to give weightage of marks to rural candidates for the purpose of direct recruitment of the posts in the State Civil Services.

The aforesaid Rules were challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court, which writ petition came to be allowed on 11.11.1998 quashing the Rules 3-B of the Rules providing weightage of marks to the rural candidates as uncostitutional. A writ appeal filed by the State Government in W.A.No. 5807/1998 was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, which was also further confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court by its order dated 14,2.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 7105/2001. Consequently, the services of the candidates, who were recruited awarding rural weightage marks, were terminated. Later as a special measure, they were appointed on contract basis and further special Rules of 2003 were brought in by the State of Karnataka to absorb the persons, who were earlier appointed based on the rural weightage marks, The said absorption. Rules were challenged before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the same was remanded by the Apex Court to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Subsequently, application filed challenging the absorption Rules was withdrawn. Consequently, the absorption Rules are in force,

The respondents, who were appointed and later absorbed by virtue of the order of absorption, sought certain benefits, which they were entitled to under the absorption Rules. The same was not considered by the petitioners. Therefore, they approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 5.2.2010 disposed of the application granting relief to the respondents/applications therein. This order is called in question in these writ, petitions.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have noticed that title Tribunal has directed the State Government to consider the representation of the respondents in the light of the special Rule 2003, which has come into effect from 12,11,2003. As a matter of fact, the doctors, who were working earlier pursuant to awarding of marks under rural weightage, were also selected for admission to the postgraduate medical and dental degree and diploma courses. In the circumstances, based on the (sic)emdum issued by the State Government on 10.1.2007, the Tribunal has directed the State Government to implement the said corrigendum and also directed to consider the representation of the respondents/applicants.

If the Tribunal has directed the State Government to consider the case of the applicants in the light of the observation made therein relying upon the special Rules, 2003, this Court cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal and it is tor the Government to implement the absorption Rules and also corrigendum dated 10.1.2007, because the respondents are not requesting the Government to grant relief to them beyond the scope of the absorption Rules to the circumstances, we are of the view that no error is committed by the Tribunal in issuing such direction. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is for the Government to consider the case of the respondents/applications in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal.