RANGANNA M G Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(KAR)-1966-3-7
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on March 21,1966

RANGANNA (M.G.) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Bhimayya, J. - (1.)This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner prayed for several reliefs. But, before admission, the petitioner amended the petition confining the relief for a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine from the date respondent 3 was appointed as Professor.
(2.)The petitioner is a graduate from the Medical College, Mysore. He entered service in the Public Health Department in the year 1955 as a Medical Officer of Health. His services were regularized by the Public Service Commission in the year 1955. His services were thereafter lent to the Mysore Medical College, University of Mysore, in or about September 1956 as Lecturer, Preventive and Social Medicine in which post he continued to work until May 1958. Thereafter, he was deputed for post graduate studies at the All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta. He obtained a Diploma in Public Health in the year 1959. Thereafter, he was posted temporarily as Assistant Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine in the Medicine College, Mysore. The Mysore Public Service Commission advertised the post of Assistant Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine. The petitioner applied for it and was selected on 29 June, 1961, and was placed on probation for a period of two years under Government Order No. PLM 234 MNX 61 dated 29 June, 1961. The Government reduced the probation period to one year by their order dated 17 July 1964 in No. PLM 380 MNX 63. According to the petitioner, the Cadre and Recruitment Rules provide for the post of Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine being filed up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the Cadre of Assistant Professors in Preventive and Social Medicine. Respondent 3, who is permanently borne on the Cadre of Public Health Department as District Health Officer, was appointed on 23 November, 1962 as per Exs. J and K. The petitioner questions this appointment on the ground that the State Government having established a separate cadre of teaching staff in the Medical Colleges run by the Government and the Cadre and Recruitment Rules clearly providing for an Assistant Professor being promoted to the next promotional post of Professor, respondent 1 could not bring in respondent 3 even temporarily on O.O.D. basis from the Department of Public Health, as neither the above Cadre and Recruitment Rules nor any other rule gives power to the Government to appoint respondent 3 as Professor. Therefore, the appointment of respondent 3 is bad in law. According to the petitioner respondent 1 has arbitrarily declined to consider his case for promotion though he was the seniormost Assistant Professor to be promoted as Professor. He seeks for a mandamus directing respondent 1 to consider his case for promotion as Professor of Preventive and Social Medicine from the date when respondent 3 was appointed as Professor.
(3.)Respondent 1 has filed the counter. It is averred therein that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Mysore Medical Department Service Rules were in the first instance framed on 1 December, 1960. They were amended and the amended rules came into force on 17 March, 1964. According to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1964 respondent 1 maintains that the petitioner does not possess the qualification prescribed for the post of the Professor. Further, it stated that the petitioner also does not possess the qualification of having worked as Deputy Health Officer of a municipal corporation as a District Health Officer for a period of not less than two years as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. According to respondent 1, respondent 3 was appointed temporarily and pending selection by the Public Service Commission before "Rules of 1964" came into force. The petitioner has filed a lengthy reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent 1.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.