ORDER In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the Government order dated 29-1-2010 issued by respondent 1 and for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue necessary orders to the third respondent to follow the existing procedure for selection to the PG courses in Medical and dental. 2. Petitioners are regularly appointed medical officers by the Government of Karnataka between 29-8-2002 and 16-8-2004. Petitioners are eligible for post-graduation course in MS/MD/MDS as in-service candidates. The selection and admission of the candidates for the PG courses is governed by the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post-graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006 (for short, 'Rules'). The respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (for short, 'University') issued a notification on 20-11-2009 inviting application from eligible candidates to appear for common entrance test known as PGET for selection of candidates to various PG courses. Petitioners and others appeared for entrance test held on 11-2-2010. The respondent-University issued a provisional merit list on 26-2-2010 as per Annexure-C. As per Rules the candidates for Post-graduation are entitled for service weightage marks in addition to their score in the written test. According to the petitioners, the service weightage marks are to be awarded only to the regularly appointed medical officers. On earlier occasion for the academic year 2005-06, the respondent-Government issued a notification on 18-1-2005 stipulating awarding of service weightage marks to the candidates who worked as contract doctors. This Court in Dr. T. Prathap and Others v State of Karnataka and Others), quashed the Government notification dated 18-1-2005 providing service weightage marks to the contract doctors. Contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Dr. T. Prathap's case, now the respondent-Government has issued the impugned notification on 29-1-2010 as per Annexure-C providing service weightage marks to the contract/rural weightage doctors who have no break in service. Hence these writ petitions. 3. During the pendency of these writ petitions some of the medical officers who are the beneficiaries of the impugned order filed impleading applications in both the writ petitions to come on record as additional respondents. The said applications came to be allowed permitting the applicants to come on record. Accordingly, the writ petitions came to be amended impleading applicants as additional respondents. 4. The said applications came to be allowed permitting the applicants to come on record. Accordingly, the writ petitions came to be amended impleading applicants as additional respondents. 4. Sri P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8544 to 8550 of 2010 contend that the impugned notification is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Dr. T. Prathap's case and also the Rules. The impugned notification is issued by the Government acting under the pressure of contract/rural weightage service doctors. Great injustice has been done to the petitioners who are regularly appointed medical officers. 5. Sri T.P. Rajendrakumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 9546 and 9547 of 2010 adopts the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Sri P.S. Rajagopal. He further contends that respondents have now announced the merit list by extending service weightage marks to the contract/rural weightage doctors contrary to the Rules and the affidavits filed by respondent-Government before this Court. Now the present merit list announced by the respondents resulted in failure of justice to the petitioners. Learned Advocates in both the writ petitions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Dr. N. Ranganath and Others v Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Bangalore and Others1; (ii) Dr. K.S. Sunitha v State of Karnataka and Others2; (iii) S. Sreedhara v State of Karnataka and Another3; (iv) Dr. T. Prathap's case; (v) Dr. Rajinder Singh v State of Punjab4; (vi) K. Kuppuswamy v State of Tamil Nadu5. 6. Per contra, Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents contend that petitioners and respondents are members of Karnataka Government Medical Officers Association. The Medical Officers Association in their meeting resolved to place certain demands before the Government and the same includes to consider the service period of contract doctors for extending service weightage for the purpose of admission to Post-graduation. Further the petitioners participated in the strike held by the Medical Officers Association. Some of the petitioners have also tendered resignations pursuant to the call given by the Medical Officers Association. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of acquiescence. It is further contended that the Rules came to be amended by issuing a Corrigendum dated 25-4-2006 specifying that service rendered as contract doctors are eligible for service weightage. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of acquiescence. It is further contended that the Rules came to be amended by issuing a Corrigendum dated 25-4-2006 specifying that service rendered as contract doctors are eligible for service weightage. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is not contrary to the Rules. It is further contended that Dr. T. Prathap's case was prior to the amendment of Rules. Now the rules are amended and therefore, the impugned order is not contrary to the law declared by this Court in Dr. T. Prathap's case. It is contended that the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Appln. No. 4656 of 2008 and connected matters directed the Government to treat the period of service with effect from initial appointment with rural weightage till their regular service for the purpose of selection and admission to PG course. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Dr. T. Prathap's case; (ii) A.G. Hasabnis v State of Mysore1; (iii) K. Anjaiah and Others v K. Chandraiah and Others2; (iv) Khasi Khurshid Ahmed v Union of India and Others3. 7. Learned Government Advocate and learned Advocate for the respondent-University supports the impugned order and adopt the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents. 8. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the contesting respondents are the members of the Karnataka Government Medical Officers Association. The Association resolved to place certain demands before the Government including the demand to consider the service rendered by the contract/rural weightage doctors for extending service weightage for the purpose of admission to post-graduation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 9546 and 9547 of 2010 participated in the strike and in response to the call given by the medical officers association tendered their resignations as per Annexures-R4 and R5, dated 21-8-2009. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8544 to 8550 of 2010 have not tendered their resignations in response to the call given by the medical officers association. Though the petitioners in both the petitions are members of the medical association and participated in the meeting, strike etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8544 to 8550 of 2010 have not tendered their resignations in response to the call given by the medical officers association. Though the petitioners in both the petitions are members of the medical association and participated in the meeting, strike etc. are not debarred from questioning the impugned order if the same is found to be contrary to law, rules and judicial pronouncements. Since the petitioners are challenging the very principle of extending service weightage marks to the contract/rural weightage doctors as contrary to rules and the judicial pronouncement of this Court, the question of acquiescence will not arise. Therefore, I decline to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel for contesting respondents that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence. 10. It is not in dispute that the selection and appointment of medical officers for the post-graduate courses is governed by the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Post-graduate Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Courses Rules, 2006 (for short, 'Rules'). The relevant rules for the purpose of this case are Rules 2(g), 3(2) and 10(1)(a) and they read as under: "2. Definitions.-..... (a) (g) "In-service candidates" means, persons belonging to the Health and Family Welfare Services, the Karnataka Medical Education Services of the State Civil Services, Employees' State Insurance (Medical) Services, Mahanagara Palike Services, Boards and Corporations Services and autonomous Medical Institutions registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 including the persons deputed from such services to any other foreign services. 3. Entrance Test.-(1) ...... (2) In-service candidate, who has completed three years of regular service and successfully completed the probationary period as on the last date of receipt of applications for the Entrance test, shall apply through the proper channel only through concerned Head of the Department i.e., Director of Medical Education/Director of Health and Family Welfare Services/Director, ESI/Heads of Autonomous Institutions/Heads of Boards and Corporations, as the case may be. 10. Procedure for selection of in-service candidates for admission to Post-graduate Medical and Dental Courses.-..... (1) No in-service...... (a) unless he has put in not less than five years of service". 11. 10. Procedure for selection of in-service candidates for admission to Post-graduate Medical and Dental Courses.-..... (1) No in-service...... (a) unless he has put in not less than five years of service". 11. Further it is not in dispute that the Government by its order dated 10-1-2006 amended sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 by deleting the word 'regular' and by inserting 'service in concerned department including candidates appointed under rural weightage category'. By virtue of this amendment sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 reads as under: "In-service candidate, who has completed three years of service in the concerned department including candidates appointed under rural weightage category and successfully completed the probationary period as on the last date of receipt of applications for the Entrance Test shall apply through, the proper channel only through concerned head of the Department i.e., Director of Medical Education/Director of Health and Family Welfare Services/Director, ESI/Heads of Autonomous Institutions/Heads of Boards and Corporations, as the case may be". 12. The intention of the Legislature in amending sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 is to provide service weightage to the doctors appointed under Rural weightage category. The words "in service candidate" in Rule 2(g) and the words "regular service" in Rule 10(1)(a) are to be read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules. A combined reading of these three provisions manifestly makes it clear that the service rendered by the candidates under the rural weightage category are entitle for extension of service weightage marks. Therefore, the impugned order is not contrary to the rules. 13. This Court in Dr. T. Prathap's case held that extension of service weightage marks to the contract/rural weightage doctors as contrary to the rules. After disposal of Dr. T. Prathap's case, sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 came to be amended specifying that the contract/rural weightage doctors are entitled for service weightage marks. These amended rules are not questioned before this Court. In view of this development the law laid down in Dr. T. Prathap's case has no application to the facts of the case. 14. The contesting respondent and others were initially appointed by recruitment through Karnataka Public Service Commission Under Rural weightage by extending the rural weightage benefit under Rule 3(b) of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. In view of this development the law laid down in Dr. T. Prathap's case has no application to the facts of the case. 14. The contesting respondent and others were initially appointed by recruitment through Karnataka Public Service Commission Under Rural weightage by extending the rural weightage benefit under Rule 3(b) of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 5807 of 1998 set aside the appointment of respondents and others who had the benefit of rural weightage. Subsequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 5807 of 1998 and directed to redo the selection without rural weightage. Accordingly, the Government revised the list of selection by excluding the rural weightage. In the revised list some of the medical officers continued in service and they were given benefit of seniority, pay, promotion, leave and pension for the service rendered earlier on rural weightage. Some of the medical officers who did not find a place in the revised list were continued in service on contract basis. Further the Government framed rules for absorption of contract doctors under the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of the Persons Appointed to the State Civil Services with the Benefit of Rural Weightage) (Special) Rules, 2003 (for short, 'Absorption Rules'). This Absorption Rules were questioned before the Supreme Court and there was stay of operation of the Absorption Rules. Later the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal disposed the matter vide order dated 8-6-2005 upholding the validity of Absorption Rules. Accordingly, on 14-7-2005 the medical officers who were initially appointed on rural weightage and later continued on contract basis were all absorbed under the Absorption Rules. 15. The contract/rural weightage service doctors gave representation to treat service rendered by them prior to absorption as regular service for the purpose of increments, pay and other benefits including admission to post-graduation. But the Government issued an endorsement on 28-3-2008 refusing the request of the respondents and others. Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 28-3-2008 the respondents and others approached the Tribunal in Application No. 4656 of 2008 and connected matters. But the Government issued an endorsement on 28-3-2008 refusing the request of the respondents and others. Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 28-3-2008 the respondents and others approached the Tribunal in Application No. 4656 of 2008 and connected matters. Now the Tribunal disposed the said applications vide order dated 5-2-2010 directing the Government to treat the service with effect from initial appointment with rural weightage till their termination as regular service for the purpose of selection and admission to post-graduate courses. This order of the Tribunal is not questioned by the respondents. Though the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal they are entitled to question the same if it is prejudicial to their interest. But the petitioners have not questioned the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents is in accordance with the direction issued by the Tribunal in Application No. 4656 of 2008 and connected matters. 16. The second prayer in W.P. Nos. 9546 and 9547 of 2010 is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to proceed with the process of selection as per Government Order dated 2-5-2006. A reading of the Government Order dated 2-5-2006 specifies that the same is applicable for the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore, the procedure and pattern to conduct PGET for admission to the post-graduation in the year 2006 cannot be made applicable for the academic year 2009-10. So also, the second prayer in W.P. Nos. 8544 to 8550 of 2010 is for a writ of mandamus to follow hitherto the existing procedure for the current academic year 2009-10 cannot be granted. The procedure for the current academic year is based on the amended rules and the impugned order. 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that the respondent-Government filed an affidavit on 25-1-2010 before this Court stating that out of 86 candidates 11 candidates are eligible to claim the benefit of the impugned order at Annexure-E, dated 29-1-2010. In support of this, the respondent-Government also produced certain documents. Now contrary to the impugned order and affidavits filed before this Court, the respondents have extended the benefits under the impugned order to all the 86 candidates. If that is so, petitioners are always at liberty to question the same in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.