Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 419 (KAR)

Varun B. R. v. State of Karnataka

2019-02-15

L.NARAYANA SWAMY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J. 1. These appeals are presented challenging common order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.46917-47025/2018 and connected cases. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Hon'ble Single Judge. 3. Heard Shri Vikram G., learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Brief facts of the case are, petitioners are doctors. They had availed government medical seats and joined Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Clinical and Non-clinical subjects during the academic year 2015-2016. By a notification dated 28.09.2018, the Director of Medical Education called upon petitioners to attend counseling for the purpose of deploying them for rural service. Petitioners challenged the said notification in the instant writ petitions principally on the ground that All India Quota candidates are exempted from 'bond obligation'. The Hon'ble Single Judge, by a considered order has partly allowed the writ petitions and issued certain directions to the State Government. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed these appeals. 5. Shri Vikram G., learned advocate for the petitioners contended that petitioners have obtained seats under the All India Quota and this Court in W.Ps.No.25391- 93/2016 and connected cases has passed an interim order on 28.04.2016 and stayed the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012. Therefore, the impugned notification runs counter to the interim order passed by this Court. 6. Shri Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 argued in support of the impugned order. 7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records. 8. With regard to the contention whether petitioners who have obtained seats under All India Quota are exempt from 'bond obligation', the Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded that Rule 15 of 2006 Rules does not exempt them from such obligation. It is not in dispute that petitioners have tendered undertakings and bound themselves to perform duties in rural areas. 9. So far as interim order dated 28.04.2016 is concerned, it is to be noted that this Court has held in paragraph No.5 of the said order that there shall be no bar for doctors who voluntarily join one year rural service training. 10. 9. So far as interim order dated 28.04.2016 is concerned, it is to be noted that this Court has held in paragraph No.5 of the said order that there shall be no bar for doctors who voluntarily join one year rural service training. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have furnished a bond and bound themselves to serve in rural area. Having agreed to serve, petitioners cannot be heard to turn around and seek refuge under the aforesaid interim order. In our view, once bond is furnished, it amounts to voluntarily agreeing to do rural service. 11. In view of above discussions, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Resultantly, these appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.