Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 502 (KAR)

SHIVASHANKARAPPA MUDEGOUDAR v. K. A. ARAVIND

2007-08-10

CYRIAC JOSEPH, RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2007
CYRIAC JOSEPH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 28th october, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 10557 of 2006 which was allowed by the Learned Single Judge. The appellant was the 4th respondent in the writ petition which was filed by the 1st respondent herein. ( 2 ) AS per Annexure-'a' notification dated 7-6-2006, Rajiv gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka (Respondent No. 2 herein) invited applications from eligible candidates for appearing in the Entrance Test for Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses (Medical Faculty) for the academic year 2006-07. One of the institutions mentioned in Annexure-'a' is the Bangalore Medical college, Bangalore where courses in M. Ch (Plastic Surgery) and M. Ch (Urology) Courses are offered, In Note (A) in the notification, it is specified that "karnataka Government in-service candidates should also appear for Entrance Test". In Note (B), it is stated that "admission to the Courses is subject to the admission rules of the Government of karnataka". According to Clause 1 (f), in-service doctors should apply through proper channel and also should furnish the information whether any enquiry is pending against him/her and whether he/she is under suspension/unauthorised absence. ( 3 ) THE appellant who is a member of the Karnataka Government health and Family Welfare Service and who was then working on deputation as Senior Specialist, Department of Urology in Vijaynagar institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary, applied for appearance in the entrance Test and sought admission to M. Ch (Urology) Course. The first respondent who was then employed as Assistant Professor of general Surgery in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli which is an autonomous institution run by the Government of Karnataka also applied for appearance in the Entrance Test and sought admission to M. Ch (Urology) Course. Both of them had applied for admission in the 'in-service' quota. As per Annexure-'f'-Provisional Marks List published by the second respondent University the appellant got 57 marks and the first respondent got 66 marks. Both of them had applied for admission in the 'in-service' quota. As per Annexure-'f'-Provisional Marks List published by the second respondent University the appellant got 57 marks and the first respondent got 66 marks. But in Annexure-'h' list of Candidates selected under the In-service quota, the appellant's name was shown as the candidate selected for admission to M. Ch (Urology) and the first respondent's name was shown in the Waiting List ( 4 ) THEREUPON the first respondent filed the Writ Petition seeking a declaration that the inclusion of the fourth respondent (Appellant) in the list of candidates selected in the 'in-service quota' for admission to m. Ch (Urology) Course is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He also prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition to consider objectively the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses (Medical faculty) 2006-07 in accordance with law and in particular annexure-'a' notification and Annexure-'f' Provisional Marks List and to accord him admission to the Course. The petitioner also sought an interim order of stay of selection and admission of the fourth respondent. While issuing notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ Petition, the learned Single Judge did not grant any stay, but passed the following order on 1-8-2006: "the selection and admission of the fourth respondent shall be subject to the result of this Writ Petition. " This said interim order continued in force till the disposal of the Writ Petition. ( 5 ) THE respondents in the Writ Petition including the appellant herein contested the claims of the writ petitioner by filing Statement of objections. After considering the rival contentions of the parties the learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 28-10-2006, allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the selection list and directed the authorities to redo the list in accordance with the 2002 Ordinance as amended in the year 2004 and announce the selection list expeditiously on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal was filed by the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. ( 6 ) THE Writ Appeal was admitted on 21-11-2006. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal was filed by the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. ( 6 ) THE Writ Appeal was admitted on 21-11-2006. According to the appellant, even before the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge, he had been relieved by the Government on 4-10-2006 and he was admitted to the M. Ch (Urology) Course by the Bangalore Medical College on 5-10-2006 and since then he was undergoing the Course, After hearing all the parties, an interim order was passed in this Writ Appeal on 4-12-2006 staying the operation of the impugned judgment. On the basis of the interim order the appellant has been undergoing the course to which he had been admitted. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to Annexure-K Notification dated 23-5-2006 issued by the Government of Karnataka, admission to Post Graduate super Speciality Courses is regulated by the Karnataka Medical colleges (Conduct of Entrance Test and Selection for PGSSCs) Rules, 1981 and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Ordinance governing Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to PGSSCs-2002 (hereinafter called the 2002 Ordinance ). The Entrance Test Committee under the Chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi university of Health Sciences shall have power to prepare and approve the merit list of the Entrance Test and the subsequent spot selection process upto the issue of seat allotment order. The allotment of seats shall be on the basis of the seat matrix published by the Government and on the basis of merit secured in the Entrance Test. 50% of the total seats in Government Medical Colleges and Government autonomous Medical Institutions shall be reserved for 'in-service candidates'. Reservation of 50% of the seats to in-service candidates does not confer any right to in-service candidates for being deputed to the Post Graduate Super Speciality Courses. ( 8 ) ALONG with Annexure-K Notification the Government of karnataka published the seat matrix for the academic year 2006-07. As per the said seat matrix there were two seats in M. Ch (Urology) in the Bangalore Medical College and one of them was reserved for 'in-service quota' and the remaining seat was reserved for 'entrance quota'. ( 8 ) ALONG with Annexure-K Notification the Government of karnataka published the seat matrix for the academic year 2006-07. As per the said seat matrix there were two seats in M. Ch (Urology) in the Bangalore Medical College and one of them was reserved for 'in-service quota' and the remaining seat was reserved for 'entrance quota'. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, both the appellant and the first respondent were seeking admission under the in-service quota and therefore the dispute is regarding their claim for admission to M. Ch (Urology) Course against the one seat under the in-service quota in Bangalore Medical College. It is not disputed that the appellant is a regular Government employee and a member of the Karnataka Government Health and Family welfare Service and therefore a Karnataka Government in-service candidate and that he had submitted the application as an in-service candidate through proper channel. But the first respondent was not a regular Government employee and he was only an employee of the karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, which is an autonomous Institution run by the Government of Karnataka. He submitted his application to the Secretary for Medical Education, government of Karnataka along with Annexure-B letter dated 21-6-2006 in which he requested to forward the application to the registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore. The secretary, Medical Education, Government of Karnataka forwarded the application to the Rajiv Gandhi University as per Annenxure-D letter dated 11-7-2006. ( 10 ) THE list of candidates who secured 50% and above marks in the entrance test and became eligible to appear for the viva-voce examination scheduled to be held on 14-7-2006 was published by the University on 9-7-2006 vide Annexure-F Provisional Marks List. As per Annexure-F, the appellant got 57 marks and the first respondent got 66 marks. Admittedly the maximum marks for viva-voce was 5'. Even if the appellant got maximum marks in viva-voce, his total marks would be only 62, which was less than the marks obtained by the first respondent in the entrance test. Hence the first respondent claimed that he was entitled to preference over the appellant in the matter of admission to the one seat reserved for in-service candidates. He questioned the inclusion of the appellant's name in the list of candidates selected for admission and the inclusion of the first respondent's name only in the wailing list. Hence the first respondent claimed that he was entitled to preference over the appellant in the matter of admission to the one seat reserved for in-service candidates. He questioned the inclusion of the appellant's name in the list of candidates selected for admission and the inclusion of the first respondent's name only in the wailing list. ( 11 ) IN the statement of objections filed by the Rajiv Gandhi university and the Entrance Test Committee (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) it was contended that the selection of candidates coming under the in-service category was governed by the Karnataka medical Education Department (Deputation of In-service Candidates. to Post Graduate Super Speciality Courses) Rules 2006 (hereinafter called the 2006 Rules) and only those who satisfy the definition of in-service candidate' contained in Clause 2 (d) of the said Rules were eligible for admission. It was also contended that the petitioner who was working in an autotomous institution run by the Government of karnataka was treated as a Government in-service candidate and he was considered for appointment in the light of the above mentioned rules. It was further contended that since the petitioner was not eligible as per the said Rules and since the 4th respondent (appellant herein)was qualified for selection under the said Rules, the latter was selected for admission to the only one seat in M. Ch (Urology) reserved for in-service candidates. According to Respondents 1 and 2, in the light of clause 2 (d) of the 2006 Rules an in-service candidate should have put in a minimum period of 10 years of service and his probation period should be declared to have been satisfactorily completed. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the above requirement he was ineligible for admission under the in-service quota. It was specifically contended in the written statement that if the petitioner's claim that the 2006 Rules were not applicable to him on the ground that he was not a Government in-service Doctor was accepted, he could not be treated as an in-service candidate and consequently he would be ineligible for admission under the in-service quota. ( 12 ) IDENTICAL contentions were raised in the Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the Government of Kamataka. ( 12 ) IDENTICAL contentions were raised in the Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the Government of Kamataka. It was stated that since the petitioner had not completed 10 years service his case could not be considered overlooking the claim of the 4th respondent (appellant herein ). The Government of Kamataka also relied on the 2006 Rules and the definition of 'in-service candidates' contained in Rule 2 (d) of the said Rules. According to the Government, on the petitioner's request, his application was considered as an application of an in-service candidate and was forwarded to the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee found that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service as required under Rule 2 (d), whereas the 4th respondent (appellant) had completed 10 years of service and therefore the 4th respondent was included in the list of selected candidates and the petitioner was included in the waiting list. It was also explained that in view of the acute shortage of Super Speciality Graduates in various Government Institutions and Autonomous Institutions, the selection Committee decided that where candidates who had completed 10 years of service were not available, candidates who had not completed 10 years of service could be considered. Since the 4th respondent (appellant) with 10 years of service was available he was selected and since no other candidate with 10 years of service was available, the petitioner was included in the waiting list. ( 13 ) THE 4th respondent in the writ petition also had filed Statement of Objections opposing the claim of the writ petitioner. His definite case was that the petitioner was not an in-service candidate in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the 2006 Rules as the petitioner had not put in a minimum period of 10 years of service. ( 13 ) THE 4th respondent in the writ petition also had filed Statement of Objections opposing the claim of the writ petitioner. His definite case was that the petitioner was not an in-service candidate in terms of Rule 2 (d) of the 2006 Rules as the petitioner had not put in a minimum period of 10 years of service. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, in the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge held that a conjoint reading of the various provisions contained in the ordinance Governing Conduct of Entrance Test for admission to Post graduate Super Speciality Courses 2002 as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004 would show that the definition of In-service candidate includes an employee holding the post of Lecturer, Professor or assistant Professor in Autonomous Institutions run by the Government apart from the other State Government employees holding such posts in the Medical Education Department The learned Single Judge also held that the Karnataka Medical Education Department (Deputation of In-service Candidates to Post Graduate Super Speciality Courses)Rules 2006 did not apply to the petitioner and that the petitioner's case required to be considered under the Ordinance of 2002 as amended by a Notification dated 26-7-2004. The learned Single judge further held that since the 2002 Ordinance did not stipulate a minimum service of 10 years, the petitioner was not in eligible for admission in the 'in-service quota'. On that basis the learned Single judge proceeded to hold that the inclusion of the 4th respondent (appellant) in the list of selected candidates was wrong and illegal and accordingly the selection list was set aside. ( 15 ) HAVING considered the contentions of the parties and the materials placed on record, we are inclined to agree with the learned single Judge that the 2006 Rules can apply only to State Government employees. The said Rules were made by the Government of karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of section-3 read with Section-8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services act, 1978. The provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 apply only to State Government employees. The 2006 Rules were issued for regulating the deputation of Government in-service candidates to Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses. The provisions of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 apply only to State Government employees. The 2006 Rules were issued for regulating the deputation of Government in-service candidates to Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses. The definition of 'in-service candidate' contained in Rule 2 (d) of the said Rules does not include a person who is not in the service of the State Government, even if he is in the service of an autonomous institution run by the government of Karnataka. There is no material before the Court to conclude that the 2006 Rules are applicable to employees of autonomous institutions run by the Government of Karnataka or that the said Rules were adopted by the Karnataka Institute of Medical sciences, Hubli for the purpose of deputation of its employees. Therefore the 1st respondent is right in contending that the provisions of the 2006 Rules cannot govern him and consequently the minimum period of ten years of service mentioned in Ruie-2 (d) of the 2006 rules cannot be insisted in his case. ( 16 ) BUT the 1st respondent has no satisfactory explanation for, submitting his application to the Secretary, Medical Education, government of Karnataka for forwarding the same to the Registrar, rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. If the 1st respondent was not a Government employee and was not governed by the 2006 Rules as contended by him, there was no need for him to submit his application to the Secretary, Medical Education, Government of karnataka and he could have submitted the application to the Head of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli for forwarding the same to the Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. The first respondent himself proceeded on the assumption that the 2006 Rules apply to the deputation of in-service candidates whether they are Government employees or employees of autonomous institutions run by the Government. ( 17 ) ANNEXURE-K notification dated 23-5-2006 issued by the government of Karnataka clearly stated that admission to Post-Graduate Super Speciality Courses is regulated by the Karnataka medical Colleges (Conduct of Entrance Test and Selection for pgsscs) Rules, 1981 and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health sciences Ordinance governing conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to PGSSCs-2002. Therefore the appellant or the respondents cannot contend that the provisions of Ordinance-2002 were not applicable to the selection of in-service candidates for admission to Super speciality Courses. Therefore the appellant or the respondents cannot contend that the provisions of Ordinance-2002 were not applicable to the selection of in-service candidates for admission to Super speciality Courses. The confusion was created by amending ordinance-2002 through the Notification dated 26-7-2004, incorporating a definition for 'in-service candidate' which is different from the definition of 'in-service candidate' contained in Rule-2 (d) of the 2006 Rules. Apart from being different from the definition in Rule-2 (d) of 2006 Rules, the definition of 'in-service candidate' in Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance-2002 is not clear and specific and it permits different interpretations. ( 18 ) THE definition of 'in-service candidate' in Rule-2 (d) of the 2006 rules is as follows: "in-service candidate means a person in the service of the State Government working in the Medical Education department in the cadre of Tutor, Lecturer, Assistant professor, Associate Professor or Professor in the government of Medical College and General Duty Medical officer, Specialist and Senior Specialist in Health and family Welfare Services Department, IMOs with PG qualification, Deputy Surgeon, Surgeon working in ESI (MS) under Labour Department, under the control of health and Family Welfare Department and Health and family Welfare Department (Medical Education), whose probation period is declared to have been completed satisfactorily and who has put in a minimum period of ten years of service" The definition of in-service candidates contained in Clause-2 (j) of 2002 Ordinance as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004 is as follows: "in-Service Candidates means regular state Government employees holding the post of Lecturers / Assistant professors / Professors in Medical Education department and General Duty Medical Officers, specialists and Senior Specialists in Health and Family welfare Services Department of Government of karnataka, Employees State Insurance (Medical services) and autonomous institutions run by government of Karnataka in the State of Karnataka". ( 19 ) ACCORDING to the definition contained in Rule 2 (d) of the 2006 rules, an in-service candidate has to be a person in the service of the state Government who is working in any of the cadre / posts mentiond in Rule 2 (d) and whose probation period is declared to have been completed satisfactorily and who has put in a minimum period of ten years of service. A person who is not in the service of the State government cannot be treated as an in-service candidate. A person who is not in the service of the State government cannot be treated as an in-service candidate. Even a person who is in the service of an autonomous institution run by the government of Karnataka is not an in-service candidate. However the 1st respondent who was not in the service of the Government and was only an employee of an autonomous institution run by the government of Karnataka submitted his application through the government of Karnataka and his application was forwarded by the government as if it was an application of an in-service candidate. Before forwarding the application, the Government does not appear to have made any verification of his eligibility as an in-service candidate. ( 20 ) ACCORDING to the definition contained in Clause-2 (j) of ordinance 2002 as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004, 'in-service candidates' means regular State Government employees holding fee post of: (i) Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors in Medical education Department; and (ii) General Duty Medical Officers, Specialists and Senior specialists in (a) Health and Family Welfare Services Department of government of Karnataka; (b) Employees State Insurance (Medical Services); and (c) autonomous institutions run by Government of karnataka in the State of Kamataka. If Clause 2 (j) is understood as above, an in-service candidate has to be a regular State Government employee holding any of the posts mentioned above. Unlike in Rule 2 (d) of the 2006 Rules, there is no stipulation in Clause 2 (j) that the Government employee should have put in a minimum period of ten years of service and his probation period should be declared to have been completed satisfactorily. ( 21 ) CLAUSE 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002 is capable of being understood differently also. It is possible to understand Clause 2 (j) as defining 'in-service candidates' as any of the following: (i) Regular State Government employees holding the post of Lecturers / Assistant Professors / Professors in medical Education Department; (ii) General Duty Medical Officers, Specialists and Senior specialists in- (a) Health and Family Welfare Services Department of government of Karnataka; (b) Employees State Insurance (Medical Services); and (c) Autonomous institutions run by Government of karnataka in the State of Karnataka. If Clause 2 (j) is understood as above, an in-service candidate need not necessarily be a regular State Government employee. If Clause 2 (j) is understood as above, an in-service candidate need not necessarily be a regular State Government employee. A person working as General Duty Medical Officer or Specialist or Senior specialist in any autonomous institution run by the Government of is eligible to be treated as in-service candidate. ( 22 ) THE first respondent does not satisfy the definition of 'in-service candidate' if Clause 2 (j) is interpreted either way. If the first interpretation is accepted, he is not an 'in-service candidate' as he was not a regular government employee. Even if the second interpretation is accepted, he is not an 'in-service candidate' as he was not a General Duty Medical Officer or Specialist or Senior specialist in the autonomous institution in which he was working. Admittedly he was working as Assistant Professor which is a post different from General Duty Medical Officer, Specialist and Senior specialist. ( 23 ) THUS the first respondent was not an 'in-service candidate' even as per the definition in Clause 2 (j) of 2002 Ordinance as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004. ( 24 ) THE writ petitioner had contended that he was eligible to be treted as an in-service candidate in terms of Clause-2 (j) as he was working as Assistant Professor in an autonomous institution run by the government of Karnataka in the State of Karnataka. The writ petitioner had also contended that 2006 Rules were not applicable to him as he was not a Government employee. On that basis, he also contended that the requirement of minimum service for a period of ten years could not be insisted in his case. According to him, he was an Assistant professor in an autonomous institution run by the Government of karnataka and hence irrespective of the period of service, he was eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate in terms of clause-2 (j) of 2002 Ordinance. Even assuming that 2006 Rules did not apply to the petitioner as he was not a Government employee and consequently the minimum service of ten years could not be insisted in is case, the petitioner would not be eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate even in terms of Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002 as explained earlier. Even assuming that 2006 Rules did not apply to the petitioner as he was not a Government employee and consequently the minimum service of ten years could not be insisted in is case, the petitioner would not be eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate even in terms of Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002 as explained earlier. ( 25 ) THE definition of in-service candidates in Clause 2 (j) of ordinance 2002 is for the purpose of determining the eligibility for admission to the Course. The definition of in-service candidate in rule-2 (d) of 2006 Rules is for determining the entitlement of the government employees for grant of deputation for undergoing Super speciality Courses. Hence the absence of the stipulation regarding minimum service of ten years in Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002 does not make Rule-2 (d) of 2006 Rules irrelevant or inapplicable. A regular government employee may be eligible for admission against in-service quota as per Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002, but he will be entitled to deputation only if he has the minimum service of ten years as required by Rule-2 (d) of 2006 Rules. The provisions contained in Clause 2 (j)of Ordinance 2002 and Rule 2 (d) of 2006 Rules have to be harmoniously interpreted as stated above. ( 26 ) IF an emplovee of an autonomous institution run by the government of Karnataka is eligible for admission in the in-service quota irrespective of the period of service, an anomalous situation will arise where an employee of the autonomous institution can seek admission in the in-service quota immediately after entering service, whereas a Government employee will have to wait for ten years to seek admission in the in-service quota. It is not clear whether government intended such a differential treatment. If only the government and the University applied more care in defining the expression 'in-service candidate' the confusion or ambiguity could have been avoided. ( 27 ) THE contention of the petitioner which was accepted by the learned Single Judge implies that there are two categories of in-service candidates: (1) those who are in the regular service of the Government of Karnataka and (2) those who are employees of autonomous institutions run by Government of Karnataka in the State of Karnataka. In the case of the first category, 2006 Rules will apply for their deputation. In the case of the first category, 2006 Rules will apply for their deputation. In the case of the second category, no deputation in contemplated. But it is not explained why the petitioner who is an employee of an automous institution run by the Government forwarded his appication through the Government of Karnataka instead of sending it directly through the Head of the autonomous institution. ( 28 ) EVEN though the reason stated by Respondents 1 to 3 for not including the writ petitioner in the list of selected candidates is wrong as held by the learned Single Judge, we do not find justification for setting aside the selection of the appellant who was eligible and qualified for admission as an in-service candidate, whereas, the writ petitioner was not eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate even as per the definition of 'in-service candidate' contained in Clause 2 (j) of ordinance 2002. Once it is found that the writ petitioner himself was not eligible for admission under the in-service quota, the selection of the appellant as an in-service candidate cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioner. Even the petitioner has no case that the appellant was not eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate or that he did not obtain the qualifying marks. The only objection raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner had obtained higher marks than the appellant and hence he was entitled to preference in the matter of admission. The question of preference can arise only when the petitioner himself is eligible to be treated as an in-service candidate. The mistake, if any, committed by the Respondents in assigning the reason for not including the petitioner in the list of selected candidates cannot confer any right on the petitioner for admission to the Post graduate Super Speciality Course under the in-service quota. The mistake, if any, committed by the Respondents in assigning the reason for not including the petitioner in the list of selected candidates cannot confer any right on the petitioner for admission to the Post graduate Super Speciality Course under the in-service quota. ( 29 ) SINCE we do not agree with the finding of the learned Single judge that the various provisions contained in Ordinance-2002 as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004 would show that the definition of in-service candidate' includes an employee holding the post of Lecturer, Professor or Assistant Professor in autonomous institutions run by the Government apart from the other State government employees holding such posts in the Medical Education department and since we have held that the petitioner did not satisfy the definition of 'in-service candidate' contained in Clause 2 (j) of ordinance 2002 as amended by Notification dated 26-7-2004 and since we are of the view that the appellant satisfied the definition of 'in-service candidate' contained in Clause 2 (j) of Ordinance 2002 as well as the definition of 'in-service candidate' in Rule-2 (d) of the 2006 rules and since no other eligible candidate was available for admission to the one seat in M. Ch (Urology) Course reserved for in-service candidate in the Bangalore Medical College, we hold that the learned single Judge erred in setting aside the selection and admission of the appellant. ( 30 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. Hence the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 10557/2006 is set aside.