Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 8 (KAR)

Ankit Agarwal v. State of Karnataka

2021-01-04

R.DEVDAS

body2021
ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo for disposal dated 20.02.2020 bringing to the notice of this Court the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in a batch of writ petitions in WP. No. 40566/2015 and connected matters, including and more specifically W.P. Nos. 39867-39876/2014. 2. Sri. Madhusudhan R. Naik, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are placed on the same footing, as that of the petitioners in batch of writ petitions as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the relief that was granted to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 39867-39876/2014 is also required to be granted to the petitioners herein. 3. Paragraph No. 36 of the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 40566/2015 reads as follows: "36. Government letter offering some reprieve: (i) On 28.08.2019, all these matters having been heard and reserved, were posted for pronouncement of judgment this afternoon; the learned Addl. Advocate General Sri Sandesh Chouta on the forenoon of this day sought for further hearing, by placing on record a Government Letter dated 30.08.2019 (approved by the Principal Secretary of the Department): the content portion of the same reads as under: "The Original Act i.e., " The Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012" came into force on 03/06/2015 and the amendment Act i.e., "The Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses (Amendment) Act, 2017" came into force on 03/06/2017. The Original Act covered all candidates who were doing their medical course/post graduate medical course/super specialty graduate course as on 03.06.2015. However in view of the conditional interim order dated 06.10.2015, the candidates have not undergone the mandatory service. Looking into the workability of the Act and the object which it seeks to achieve, the State proposes (without prejudice to its contention in support of the vires of the Act) that even if the Act is made applicable for candidates who had taken their admission post of the commencement of the Act i.e., 3/06/2015 (i.e., candidates would pass out in the year 2020-21), the object which the Act seeks to achieve will be achieved. This would also satisfy the petitioners before the Court since most of the petitioners (if not all) would have completed their course well before this cut of period of 2020-21. This would also satisfy the petitioners before the Court since most of the petitioners (if not all) would have completed their course well before this cut of period of 2020-21. Proposal/concession given by the State Government would not inure to the benefit to such of the candidates who have already opted and paid penalty/compensation in lieu of not undergoing mandatory service. However if for any reason the petitioners and similar placed candidates agree to mandatorily serve the State, even for 6 months, the State would endeavour to commence the process of Counseling and post the candidates for compulsory service accordingly." (ii) Apparently, going by its text and context, the above letter not being a 'Government Order' as rightly submitted by learned ASG Mr. Shashikantha may or may not proprio vigor create any right in favour of the candidates. However, the proposal in the letter is only an expression of Government's intent of granting some reprieve to the deserving candidates who may make use of it, in accordance with law. Suffice it to say that, the legality aspects of the said letter have not been gone into by this Court; whether such a letter has legal efficacy and whether it fits into the "REMOVAL OF DIFFICILTY" clause enacted in the impugned Act, are a matter for consideration, but not in this case." 4. Having considered the letter dated 30.08.2019, the Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to hold that the impugned Act and Rules being prospective in operation do not apply to the candidates who had already been admitted to the respective medical courses, i.e., Graduation, Post-Graduation or Super Specialty Courses before 24.07.2015 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Act No. 26 of 2015 came into force. Consequently, the Government of Karnataka was directed to lay down the guidelines within two months as directed therein. 5. The petitioners are entitled for a similar relief that was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. Nos. 39867-39876/2014 where Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology is a respondent. It is ordered accordingly.