Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 503 (KAR)

Rajappa v. State of Karnataka

2019-02-25

R.DEVDAS

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. The petitioners in these batch matters have raised common question of law and facts and the respondents are common. Though these matters are listed for "Hearing - Interlocutory Application", with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, these maters are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners contended that they were appointed by the 2nd respondent-Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute, as stipendiary nurses for a block period of six months, during the year 2008-09. It is further contended by the petitioners that the 2nd respondent-Institution appointed the petitioners by giving one day break in services and extended the appointments of the petitioners from time to time. Incidentally, the petitioners were allotted quarters and there was no break in the allotment of the quarters. Therefore, it is contended that these facts would clearly demonstrate that the petitioners continued to serve in the institution from the year 2008-09. Since, the appointment of the petitioners were not regularised, the petitioners and Association representing the petitioners made a representation to the respondents seeking regularisation of their services as staff nurses. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Principal Secretary of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, issued a communication to the 2nd respondent on 21.12.2012 that there shall not be any appointment in the 2nd respondent till a decision in this regard is taken at the government level. It is further submitted that contrary to the said communication/circular, the 2nd respondent called for recruitment of staff nurses without giving weightage and preference to the petitioners. The notification is dated 28.12.2012. It is also submitted that in the cases of nurses appointed on temporary basis like petitioners, in Karnataka Medical Sciences Institute, Vijayanagara and Hubli Medical Sciences of Institute, while recruitment notifications were issued, weightage and preference was given to all such persons, who were working as nurses on stipendiary basis. Therefore, similar benefits were sought by the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.3566-3589/2013. When the writ petitions were pending, the respondent-State Government issued a Government Order dated 14.03.2013, agreeing to regularize the services of stipendiary nurses. In the light of the said Government Order, the said writ petitions were withdrawn on 15.03.2013. 4. Therefore, similar benefits were sought by the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.3566-3589/2013. When the writ petitions were pending, the respondent-State Government issued a Government Order dated 14.03.2013, agreeing to regularize the services of stipendiary nurses. In the light of the said Government Order, the said writ petitions were withdrawn on 15.03.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of the Government Order dated 14.03.2013, the 2nd respondent proceeded to go on with the recruitment process and the petitioners participated in the recruitment process. No weightage was given to the petitioners for their continued services with the 2nd respondent and in the list of eligible candidates for interview, names of the petitioners were not found. It is the contention of the petitioners that since, the Finance Department approved only 200 posts of staff nurses, though interview was conducted for 600 posts, the 2nd respondent proceeded to appoint 200 staff nurses, as the Finance Department granted approval only for 200 posts. Subsequently, it is submitted that the Government Order dated 14.03.2013 was withdrawn by the State Government. It is the contention of the petitioners that more than 400 posts of staff nurses are still laying vacant in the 2nd respondent, even as on the date of the filing of these writ petitions. Thereafter, several representations were made by the petitioners, including the representations dated 03.08.2013/26.08.2013, requesting not to fill up the posts, without giving due weightage to the petitioners for the qualifying services put in by the petitioners. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that their representations remain unconsidered by the respondents. During the course of these proceedings, the 2nd respondent herein filed two memos dated 09.07.2018 and 13.08.2018 stating that the requests of the petitioners have been placed before the State Government for consideration along with other Group 'C' posts. However, another memo dated 11.01.2019 was filed by the 2nd respondent-institution, quite contrary to the earlier memos stating that the case of the petitioners, who were staff nurses in the institution has not been recommended. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 23.01.2019 directed the 2nd respondent herein to make appropriate amendment to the recommendation that was made to the 1st respondent-State Government while including the case of the staff nurses and thereafter send the proposal to the Government. 6. Therefore, this Court, by order dated 23.01.2019 directed the 2nd respondent herein to make appropriate amendment to the recommendation that was made to the 1st respondent-State Government while including the case of the staff nurses and thereafter send the proposal to the Government. 6. Today, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has filed a memo dated 25.02.2019 placing on record the recommendation dated 15.02.2019 made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent-State Government, inter-alia stating the background and the direction issued by this Court on 23.01.2019 and recommended the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the staff nurses also along with other Group 'C' posts, for being considered while the Special Recruitment Rules are being framed by the respondent-State Government. In the light of the said recommendation, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that these petitions may disposed of, since the case of the petitioners would also be considered along with the others, as recommended by the 2nd respondent. 7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that these matters may be disposed of while fixing a time frame for the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners. In the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent-State Government, the State Government shall consider the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. Needless to observe that the services of the petitioners shall not be terminated since there is an interim order in favour of the petitioners protecting their services, till their representation and the recommendation of the 2nd respondent is considered by the 1st respondent-State Government. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners point out to the interim orders issued by this Court, reserving 102 posts of staff nurses for consideration of the case of the petitioners from out of the 600 posts that were to be filled by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to keep the 102 posts reserved as has been stated in the recommendation dated 15.02.2019 made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent State Government. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to keep the 102 posts reserved as has been stated in the recommendation dated 15.02.2019 made by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent State Government. It is further pointed out that there are 169 petitioners before this Court, and only 102 posts were directed to be kept vacant for filling up of the posts. 10. The interim orders directing the 2nd respondent to keep the 102 posts reserved for the petitioners, shall continue till the case of the petitioners are treated in terms of the directions given above. Even otherwise, further vacancies would have occurred and therefore the interest of other petitioners i.e., 67 of them who did not have the benefit of interim order shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent before they proceed to issue fresh notification. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.