ORDER : Cluster of these petitions raise a common challenge to a direct recruitment/interview notification issued by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Medical College and Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’ for short) calling for interview for recruitment to the posts of Associate Professors in the Institute. 2. Different writ petitions challenge the same interview notification but in different disciplines. Since challenge to the notification is common in all these cases, these cases are considered together and disposed of by this order, though the matter was listed for orders, by consent of parties. 3. Facts in Writ Petition No.11281 of 2021 are taken as the basis for consideration of facts obtaining in all these cases since facts are common. One common stream that passes through all these petitions is that all the petitioners are employees of Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BMCRI’ for short). 4. Sans unnecessary details, the facts in brief that are germane, are as follows:- The petitioner in Writ Petition No.10810 of 2021 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the BMCRI, in the department of ENT. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.11281 of 2021 was appointed and is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopedics in the BMCRI. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.11275 of 2021 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the year 2000 and is working in the Department of Pediatrics in the BMCRI. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.11950 of 2021 is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery since 2017 in the BMCRI. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.11955 of 2021 is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatrics in the BMCRI and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12990 of 2021 is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics in the BMCRI. 5. When the petitioners were all functioning in the capacities as mentioned hereinabove, after having joined the BMCRI, Government of Karnataka decided to convert Bowring and Lady Curzon Medical College and Research Institute into an autonomous teaching hospital and re-christened it as the Institute on 16-12-2016. 5. When the petitioners were all functioning in the capacities as mentioned hereinabove, after having joined the BMCRI, Government of Karnataka decided to convert Bowring and Lady Curzon Medical College and Research Institute into an autonomous teaching hospital and re-christened it as the Institute on 16-12-2016. The order creating autonomous teaching hospital dated 16-12-2016 reads as follows:- “GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.JFW 324 MMC 2016, BANGALORE DATED 16-12-2016 In the background of the points referred to in the preamble, it has been permitted order to take the following action to start the “Bowring & Lady Curzon Medical College and Research Institute, Bangalore” in the premises of Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital with Rs.183.54 (Rupees one hundred eighty three crores Fifty Four Lakhs) of non-recurring expenditure and Rs.74.32 (Rupees Seventy four crores thirty two lakhs) of recurring expenditure. 1. The Chief Engineer KHSDRP, Bangalore shall submit a detailed estimation list of approximate Rs.167.54 crores budget estimation to the Government and get an approval for construction of Medical College building in the premises of Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital and Girls Hostel Building in the premises of HSIS Ghosha Hospital. 2. The said building construction work shall be carried out as per Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999. 3. To submit necessary proposal to the Government with respect to merger of services of Doctors, Technicians, non-teaching staff of Health & Family Welfare Department who are working in Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital on deputation along with self-desired letter. 4. The Director & Dean, BMCRI, Bangalore shall take action in identifying the additional teaching posts working in Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute and to transfer such posts to proposed new Medical College. 5. Otherwise for creating necessary teaching/non-teaching posts a detailed proposal will have to be submitted to the Government as per MCI Rules for commencing new Medical College. 6. New account head for the year 2017-18 may be created and submitted to the Government for payment of wages, allowances of the staff of Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital and Ghosha Hospital and maintenance of the Hospital. 7. The said Institute shall be registered as autonomous Institute under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. 8. The said Institute shall crate its own byelaws as well as Cadre and Recruitment Rules. 9. Establishing a Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Medical Education. 10. 7. The said Institute shall be registered as autonomous Institute under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. 8. The said Institute shall crate its own byelaws as well as Cadre and Recruitment Rules. 9. Establishing a Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister for Medical Education. 10. After receiving essentiality and feasibility Certificate from the Government for commencing the said Medical College with limited admission of 150 MBBS students for the academic year 2018-19 to submit application to the Central Government and Medical Council of India (MCI). This order has been passed with the consent of Financed Department as per Note No.FD 920 Exp.5/2016 dated 26-10-2016 and Note of the Planning Department No. PD/59/MP/2016 dated 31-08-2016.” (Emphasis added) In terms of what was created, the Dean and Director of the BMCRI was entrusted with the work of identifying additional teaching posts existing in the BMCRI and transfer such posts to the proposed new Medical Collage. In terms of the said job entrusted, many of the petitioners herein who were working as Assistant Professors in the BMCRI were all sent on deputation to different disciplines in the Institute. Since the Institute was new and had to get into smooth functioning the petitioners deputed were to play a major role in warding off teething problems of the Institute. 6. The petitioners who were sent on deputation continued to work in the Institute. The Governing Council of the BMCRI after tripartite correspondences between the BMCRI, the Institute and Government resolved to issue Official Memorandum dated 10.02.2021 seeking to call for options from doctors who were already on deputation for permanent absorption in the Institute. The Official Memorandum dated 10.02.2021 calling for options reads as follows:- In terms of Official Memorandum issued by the Institute after such tripartite correspondence, options were exercised by all the petitioners in these cases on different dates to get themselves absorbed in different discipline. 7. Pending consideration of such options what came about was an interview notification dated 11.06.2021 seeking to fill up posts in the Institute by direct recruitment. It is this interview notification that the petitioners call in question insofar as it concerns respective discipline in which they are working as narrated (supra). 8. 7. Pending consideration of such options what came about was an interview notification dated 11.06.2021 seeking to fill up posts in the Institute by direct recruitment. It is this interview notification that the petitioners call in question insofar as it concerns respective discipline in which they are working as narrated (supra). 8. This Court while entertaining the writ petitions had granted an interim order of stay of the recruitment notification by its order dated 23.06.2021 and has followed up the same on different dates in all the writ petitions. Therefore, the recruitment notification issued by the Institute has not proceeded further. 9. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. M.C. Nagashree for the Institute and Sri P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/BMCRI. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once having called the options from the hands of petitioners for getting themselves absorbed into the Institute, it was not open to the Institute to have issued an interview notification calling for applications for the very same posts for which the petitioners had opted for. He would submit that a right has accrued in favour of all the petitioners once options were called for, or a legitimate expectation that they would be absorbed. He would further submit that the petitioners were sent on deputation when the Institute began to function and are working on deputation in the Institute even as on date. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Dhyan Chinnappa would refute the submissions and contend that the petitioners have no vested right to seek that they should be absorbed into the services of the Institute as it is only an option that was called for which will be considered in accordance with law and would, therefore, submit that the petitioners can very well participate in the selection process, if they are eligible and entitled to and cannot stall the recruitment process. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent-BMCRI would submit that the options called for were pending consideration and options were exercised by the petitioners and the Governing Council has now taken a decision that there are no surplus staff in the BMCRI to permit absorption into the services of the Institute and they are needed in the BMCRI. 13. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the materials on record. 14. The factum of the petitioners being appointed on various dates indicated hereinabove in the BMCRI is not in dispute. The Institute was formed on 16-12-2016 with certain conditions as extracted hereinabove, one of which was to draw surplus or additional posts that were existing in the BMCRI into the Institute. It is in exercise of this stipulation creating the Institute, all the petitioners and the like were deputed to the Institute. 15. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners from respective dates of their deputation have been working in the Institute. It is after certain resolutions that were passed by the BMCRI options were called from the hands of the petitioners on 1-02-2021 as indicated (supra). The options that were called did not spring from the hat, but was a conscious decision taken by the BMCRI. In terms of creation of the Institute which had directed the Dean and the Director of the BMCRI to identify posts and transfer such posts to the Institute the posts that were held by the petitioner in the respective discipline were identified and options were called with a rider that they should be in tune with the guidelines/norms/resolutions of the National Medical Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’ for short) and all the petitioners have exercised their options on different dates. It is in the teeth of these options and pending their consideration, the Institute does a volte face and issues the impugned interview notification to fill up those very posts in which the petitioners are working for the last 4 years and had exercised options for transfer/observation into the Institute. 16. The recruitment notification was issued on 11.06.2021 and notwithstanding the same, the BMCRI on 14.06.2021 reiterated its stand by its Official Memorandum calling for options from the hands of the petitioners. 16. The recruitment notification was issued on 11.06.2021 and notwithstanding the same, the BMCRI on 14.06.2021 reiterated its stand by its Official Memorandum calling for options from the hands of the petitioners. The Official Memorandum dated 14-06-2021 reads as follows: In terms of the said Official Memorandum and quoting the same in every department, communications were made by the Head of the Department to the Dean and Director of the BMCRI furnishing required information as was sought for on 14-06-2021 with regard to the staff strength in every department of the BMCRI – one such communication in the Department of ENT dated 15-06-2021 reads as follows: 17. After all these correspondences, the present writ petitions are filed challenging the interview notification contending that there are surplus staff in the BMCRI. It is for that reason that the petitioners were all sent on deputation identifying the posts which they were holding as additional posts and continued to work in the Institute even as on date. On the grant of interim order, the Governing Council met on 6-07-2021 and resolved as follows: What became of the resolution was that there were no surplus posts and the services of the petitioners were needed now and were always needed in the BMCRI and this resolution is placed on record by the BMCRI in defense of the direct recruitment notification issued by the Institute. 18. A perusal at the resolution extracted hereinabove would clearly indicate as to how and why the petitioners were sent on deputation. The ultimate resolution is completely different from what it is narrated in its preamble which clearly indicates as to the necessity of deputation of these petitioners. Therefore, this Court is faced with an imbroglio with regard to the right of the Institute to issue interview notification and the right of the petitioners to seek transfer and absorption in terms of options that are given by them. 19. It is not in dispute that both the Institute and the BMCRI are governed by norms and standards notified from time to time by the erstwhile Medical Council of India and the present Council. This fact is accepted by both the learned counsel appearing for the Institute and the BMCRI. Therefore, the dispute will have to be resolved in tune with norms and guidelines of the Council. 20. This fact is accepted by both the learned counsel appearing for the Institute and the BMCRI. Therefore, the dispute will have to be resolved in tune with norms and guidelines of the Council. 20. Another factor that will have to be considered is about legitimate expectation of doctors who are sent on deputation to work in the Institute. This Court is informed that expertise of doctors have been utilized to the fullest in all these years and their experience would be of great use even for the future. Looking from the angle of constitution of the Institute, the transfer of posts, deputation of the petitioners, options being called from the hands of the petitioners, the petitioners exercising such options though would not create a vested right in the petitioners to seek absorption, nevertheless, generates impregnable legitimate expectation, though legitimate expectation is not considered to be a right under any statute but forms a part of judicial dispensation in peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. In my considered view, these are classic cases where consideration of legitimate expectation is of paramount importance at the hands of the respondents. It is germane to notice the judgment of the Apex Court delineating legitimate expectation, both substantial and procedural in the case of Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corpn. Ltd. v. P.P. Suresh, (2019) 9 SCC 710 , wherein it is held as under: “B. Legitimate expectation 15. The principle of legitimate expectation has been recognised by this Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn., (1993) 3 SCC 499 ] If the promise made by an authority is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, a person can claim that the authority in all fairness should not act contrary to the promise. 16. M. Jagannadha Rao, J. elaborately elucidated on legitimate expectation in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India [Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727 ]. He referred (at SCC pp. 16. M. Jagannadha Rao, J. elaborately elucidated on legitimate expectation in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India [Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727 ]. He referred (at SCC pp. 741-42, para 27) to the judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)] in which Lord Diplock had observed that for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decisions of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which, “27. … (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.” (AC p. 408) 17. Rao, J. observed in this case, that the procedural part of legitimate expectation relates to a representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit, that it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. 20. The decision-makers' freedom to change the policy in public interest cannot be fettered by applying the principle of substantive legitimate expectation. 20. The decision-makers' freedom to change the policy in public interest cannot be fettered by applying the principle of substantive legitimate expectation. [Findlay, In re, 1985 AC 318 : (1984) 3 WLR 1159 : (1984) 3 All ER 801 (HL)] So long as the Government does not act in an arbitrary or in an unreasonable manner, the change in policy does not call for interference by judicial review on the ground of a legitimate expectation of an individual or a group of individuals being defeated.” (Emphasis supplied) In terms of the observations of the Apex Court with regard to legitimate expectation, if the facts obtaining at the case at hand are noticed, it becomes imperative that the petitioners have a right to legitimate expectation that the options exercised by them has to be taken to its logical end and not interjected by the impugned interview notification. This Court is acutely aware that feeding of legitimate expectation cannot run counter to the statute or subsume public interest. It is therefore, in my considered view, the legitimate expectation of the petitioners should be considered in tune with the norms, guidelines of the National Medical Council. One fact that cannot be lost sight of is the service that the doctors who were on deputation petitioners have rendered in the Institute, more so, in the telling times of the present situation of COVID-19. The morale of the doctors who have toiled for the development of the Institute after being deputed cannot be brushed aside by a stroke of notification for direct recruitment for the very posts that the petitioners have toiled in these circumstances. It is for this reason as well, the BMCRI and the Institute should in unison consider the case of the petitioners at the outset. 21. It is also to be noticed that in the case of three doctors who are sent on deputation from the services of the BMCRI are absorbed into the services of the Institute by an order long before the options were called from the hands of the petitioners. Those were in the cadre of Professors. The order with its preamble is germane for consideration of the claim of the petitioners in these cases and it reads as follows: 22. Those were in the cadre of Professors. The order with its preamble is germane for consideration of the claim of the petitioners in these cases and it reads as follows: 22. Therefore, to bring out a solution to the stalemate it is necessary for the respondents to arrive at an acceptable conclusion with regard to the services of the petitioners to be absorbed into the services of the Institute and proceed with direct recruitment thereafter, in the posts that the petitioners have exercised option. In all the posts which did not concern the discipline in these petitions, the Institute will always be at liberty to continue with the recruitment process initiated by the Institute. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (a) The Writ Petitions are disposed off. (b) The respondents shall at the outset take the options given by the petitioners to their logical end by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. (c) After passing such orders as indicated above, the Institute would be at liberty to proceed with direct recruitment process initiated in terms of Notification dated 11-06-2021. (d) Insofar as the posts that do not concern these writ petitions and are notified in the impugned notification, the Institute will be at liberty to proceed further with the recruitment process. (e) Consideration of cases of petitioners in terms of direction No.2 (supra) shall be done by the respondents before finalization of direct recruitment process. Ordered accordingly.