PUNDALIKA SAVANNA KALADAGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17. 07. 2006 in Writ Petition No. 8300/2006. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petitioner should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant is a member of the Medical Education Service of the government of Karnataka. He was appointed as Professor (Orthopaedics)in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation. While the appellant was working as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation, the karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Director of the Institute as per Notification dated 19. 03. 2005. In response to the said Notification, the appellant submitted application. He was called for interview along with other applicants. He was selected and appointed as Director as per Annexure-B-order dated 13. 05. 2005, Annexure-B-order dated 13. 05. 2005 shows that the appellant was appointed as Director of the Karnataka Institute of. Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation for a period of two years under rule XVII (2) of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, Rules and Regulations, 1995. On the strength of Annexure-B-order, the appellant took charge as Director. However, by Annexure-A-order dated 21. 06. 2006, the appellant's deputation to the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, hubli, was withdrawn and he was appointed as Professor (Orthopaedics)in the Mysore Medical College. Challenging Annexure-A-order dated 21. 06. 2006, the appellant filed the writ petition. Upholding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner has a remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and therefore, he should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes relating to the writ petition. On that basis the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge without going into any other contention raised in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the relevant files made available to the Court by the learned Government Advocate, Sri Venugopala Gowda.