High Court Karnataka High Court

Dr B Srinivasa vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Dr B Srinivasa vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2010
Author: H N Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 21% DAY OF oCToEER,-    ~

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MR. IUsTIC:E_H.N. :iN.A:G~AMdH£iXN  

WP.No.16222~16227/EEEQEDNQRE§j'V': 

BEEWEIEN:

1. I)R.E.sRINIvAsAV   '

5/0 DBEERAPPA  * '

AGE:36YEARS   V    " 
WORKING AsEENERAEDUTE__I\zI~EI3'I'CAL QFFICER
PRIMARY I-IEAI.ITIIi_'c;»EIxITRIE._V  I  
KANALLL.BEN.(}ALUR'E:E=NORTH TA-I;uI<"'
BENGALURU LIR'I3A,.I\:1AI)IsTRIVC*-E,,_ _ -

2. I)R.C.M.H'AFJLIMANT'IAIA»--RAIU
S/O CHVIKKAMUANI'YF\.RAsF.FFA
AGE: 37_YEA.RS '

" 'w0RI<IIxIC;_--As GAENEl'{"A'£"D UTY MEDICAL OFFICER
 PRlMARY_vHEA..L"I'{.-I CENTRE
'NAMAGONDLUQ' {EOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

CF}IKI?IA«BALIf;A_PUR'DIS"i'RICT.

 .3. DR';'3AN:rII0'sI«I BABU G.V.
..   EIO H.G.VENAKATA REDDY
f I' e "AG£:.37 YEARS
  wo.RI<I"I;~IG As GENERAL DUTY MEDICAL OFFICER
 ._ GENE'RA;L HOSPITAL, CHINTAMANI
  jCIIII<I<AEALLAF'IJR DISTRIC'1"»563 125

" -, I4. DR. JAYANTHI RR.
D/O P.RADHAEN' 

MAGADEROAD MA'}f_ERN£TYw-HOME'  ' " 

BENGALURU--56o..(2«:z;3.  I " -.  
3  ' IWCIPETITIONERS

(BY DR.B;SR1NIVAs';DR';c.M;A}:ANUMA1wHARAm,
DR.SANTH{)SH BABU;G;,V,;' D__R.'fA5;*ANTHI P.R., DRSAVITI-iA.M.S.,
DR.sH0BHA:T,_ PIE'I'£TIONERS« "':_;.T0 6 - PARTY IN
PERSO1\ISV(ABSEI1'\f"[f) » _  ' 

 

RE§3RESENTE--I)j ---BY? ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY_O*F_H.wEAI,'!"}Wi AND FAMILY WELFARE

 - VNIRMAIN. BHAVAN,
" " -«  DELHI'? 110 on.

 2.  "FHE.--'SECRETARY,
 -.ffME"D£CAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
I  .,pHQC1<ET«14, SECTOR--8,
-_ '=_DwARAI<A PHASE4
' .. .. NEW DELHI -- 1.1.0 002.

rs.

='-J

J"



BENG£'ILURU--560» 94%.'

 t(By.R.BASAvARA}, ASG FOR R1 & 4

3. SECRETARY

HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

ViKAS SOUDHA,

DR.B.R.A§\/IBEDKAR ROAD

BENGALURU--56O 001.

4. DIRECTOR

ESIS MEDICAL SERVIC ES
RAJAHNAGAR,
BENGALURU--56O 010.

5. COMMISSIONER     
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAIIAI~s_Ac;ARA;PA_L.I'I<1:§:AV.V ' 
CORPORATIONCIRCLE,     
BENGALURU--56O,OOI_.  I

6. THE DIRE::TO_R. OI~"?IyI£I:I1;CAI.EIIUCATION
ANAND RAO CvIRCL:E, '  M  
BENGALURU    

7. RIaGIS'I_RAR,'  V" .   

RAJIV GANDHE .UNv.ERSIIy"O_II'HEALTH SCIENCES,

4*" T BLOC K; }AYANA;QAR,  ~~

RESPONDENTS

;.Si’iv..I§H.,ETT”E5,ADV. FOR R2

1 . S131.«K;S[MAi.i;IVKAXRIUNAIAH, GP FOR R3 & R6

‘SrA’e.NILOI;2FEiR AKBAR FOR R7
Sfi. IU–*I*I’I:(;OwI)A, ADV. FOR R5)

.. ,_TH}?.SE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED WA 225 3: 227 OF
“CONSTi’II}’TIO1\3 OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO STRIKEWDOWN
_ -PRO’vISO TO REGULATION 9 OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

VNRREGULATIONS AND DECLARE THE SAME As UNSCIENTIFIC AND
‘«.I,”UNI~’I2;AsIBLE, IN SO FAR AS INWSERVICE CANDIDATES ARE

j’CONCERNED AND ETC.

a _j\.}\.

These petitions coming on for orders this dayéthiei

made the foiiowing:

;

In these writ petitions the petitio7.ne1’s have”prayedi”‘~foir7.éi

writ in the nature of certiorari to._4st~:ike down’t.he”ifirs–t”f5roxriso to”

Regulation 9 of I\fi1.edica}’:’Cotincviiimofilririig.gegniatvionsij(for short
‘Reguiations’) and for ciirecting the
respondents participate in PGET–2{)10
uncier in§serV:ice–t;’L;;otai K

_ . -w’o;*k.ing in the Department of Heaith
and Farniieé2″We1f;irei,’i.:_(}oirf:rnment of Karnataka. The second

respondent’frarneti.r_e_gi.1latit)ns for the purpose of admission to

PostiG’1’atiuate_:in–.Medicine. The first proviso to Regulation 9 of

the44Reg1:iati_o11is specify that a candidate shaii secure a minimum

of 50°/ogin the entrance test for admission to Post Graduation in

._nied*i’caI sciences. I3’etiiion.ers contend that for the academic year

‘Q;_;-.a~

20102011, 118 medical seats were reserved for

candidates. As against US seats only 86 candidates'”se§:ured._x’.

minimum of 50% as specified in first _prG’.!lSO ts) Regu–l§atie’11 of,’ V

the Regulations. Out 91′ 86 Vsuccessf’u:l-_:eandlda.tes.

candidates opted for the seats and lgdtV:’admitlted.tlQ”PC
The remaining 46 un_tllleClJ’:l’f€1fgattt’infseraleeulcandidate
quota. In this 1’egard, Wlsgj-elation requested
the Secretary, and Family
WelfarevpvDepaltttrneftt:;tQ_ proviso to Regulation 9, to
alter _fr<.)rn 50% to 45% in respect of

General Merit VL*at1;j§~.ida'rt_es"and 35% in respect of reserved

ll"candi<:lat3esA. Rezaetingllltel the request of petitioners, the Secretary

to Karnataka wrote to the Joint Secretary,

l\/£in.i'stryv*–.V(:).f Heal.t}'1 and Family Welfare, Government of India as

lll..fl.pe:'l*Annexute–F dated 6.5.20l0. Further it is seen that the

' fiepartrnent of Meclic:s} Education as per coznmunicatien dated

22.3.2010 A.nm;'}:l.l..'(e'*(l requested the Secretary to Medical

f\…,r

J"

(7
Council of India to alter the percentage from 50% to 45%. The

Association of (i}ver11tnem Doctors aiso requested th.e”se’cond

respondent as per Annexure–H dated 26.4.2010 V’

minimum percentage from 50% to:’i4i5°/6;’. p_Sinc_e Secend”.

respondent failed to consider the “..reicommendati’on fro”1n’

Government of liarnataisia as periii”‘A.nnexurevF ‘hand and the

representation at _-i\11ne><u–r_e}*H, 'i_the~pe'tit'ion'et_s are before this

court.

He;i.¢;–;t_ le;1rned”*«.c_o11n_se1 for the respondents and

perused the «entire papers. Petitioners remained
unrepresented.

4. iiSi~ncc the second respondent failed to consider the

iireqttest at.iPtnne§f<t:"res~£i', G and H the petitioners are before this

–V Cotitt’. regard to the practical difficulties expressed by the

fpetiitiopners, the same requires consideration by the second

i respondent. No p%.’e§L1CiiC€ wtii. be caused to the second respondent

-‘\…..r

if they are directed to consider the request at AnneXures»F, G and

H in accordance with law.

For the reasons stated above, the foliowing order:

i) VVri£ petitions are hereby disposed.

ii) Second respondent is hereby’ directed”to”cQnéidetc{he

CG1E1{I1uJ’1§CaiiO1′} dated 06.G5.2U_’_1d0’as

com.1I1ur1iL’ati(‘,>n date’d…_LuIZ”2.b3.20″10 as -peiflx f5V{nv1déXu’fe~G ‘V

and the 26.4’¥.V201′{)v as per

_A”h?2′;_exot3e¢1:c{–_V$4.1 accordance with law and as

d expcd’itiokfs’1y booésibie. Ordered accordingky.

I’ ….. ‘ ‘
JUDGE