JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows: (A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the communication bearing No.DME/PGS/5/2018-19 dated 28.4.2018 produced at Annexure-M and communication bearing Vaidyaru/132/12-13/144/2017-18 dated 23.3.2018 produced at Annexure-R and the communication bearing No.Vaidyaru/132/12-13/144/2017-18 dated 03.05.2017 (Year ought to be 2018) produced at Annexure-T, as illegal and opposed to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.5.2018 produced at Annexure-M3 and the representations dated 14.05.2018 produced at Annexure M4, Annexure M5, and Annexure M6, and direct the Respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7 to accommodate the petitioner in a MCI recognized subject and college of her choice to meet the ends of justice; (C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner on month to month basis and also all the arrears ever since she joined the course till the date of relief to meet the ends of justice. (D) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction holding that the period from 30.06.2017 to till joining to such transferred college be considered as time spent on duty to meet the ends of Justice. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE (E) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction holding that the bonds executed by the petitioner vide Annexure-H, Annexure -H1 and Annexure H2 on 23.6.2017 have no force in the eye of law. (F) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing the respondents to cancel the petitioners admission and discharge the petitioner from the MS-OBG course from 8 th Respondent with immediate effect, refund the petitioner all the fees paid by the petitioner along with the interest at 12% per annum and also return all original documents of the petitioner presented during admission, to meet the ends of Justice. (G) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join back to the Government service as Insurance Medical Officer at Basavanagudi ESI Dispensary, from where she was relieved with immediate effect and the service be regularized without any break, and the period from 30.06.2017 to till joining back to ESIS Medical Services, be considered as spent on duty to meet the ends of Justice. (H) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay the petitioner a compensation equivalent to the total amount of gross salary, along with regular arrears, with all the increments with the 6 th pay commission revised scale, along with the interest during the period from the date of reporting to the college i.e., from 01 July 2017 till the date of reporting back to the ESIS Dispensary at Basavanagudi, to meet the ends of Justice. (I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to write all the ensuing Post Graduate Entrance Examinations, NEET/DNB Board Examinations etc, from the next academic year 2019-20 without any impediment to meet the ends of Justice. (J) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to consider her representation produced at Annexure-L dated 05.04.2018 and grant the relief as prayed therein to meet the ends of justice. (K) Grant the petitioner the cost of this proceeding. 2. We have heard Shri. M. Narayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5, Shri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 7, Shri. N.Khetty learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Shri. Abhishek Malipatil learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was admitted to Master of Surgery Course in Obstetrics and Gynecology ("MS-OBG" for short) at respondent No.8-College in the in-service quota. She was relieved of her duties by respondent No.5 and joined the college on 01.07.2017 by paying the fee of Rs.4,40,000/- through Karnataka Examinations Authority ("KEA" for short) and Rs.48,700/- directly to the College. 4. She was relieved of her duties by respondent No.5 and joined the college on 01.07.2017 by paying the fee of Rs.4,40,000/- through Karnataka Examinations Authority ("KEA" for short) and Rs.48,700/- directly to the College. 4. It is contended that the College did not have recognition to conduct the MS-OBG course in 2017-18 and the Medical Council of India ("MCI" for short) had declined the renewal of admission by its letter dated 23.06.2017. The reliance of Annexures - J, J1 and W-13, are placed on record, in support of this contention. This fact was not informed either by the College or the KEA or the Government and she suffered stress and trauma due to this fact. She therefore could not attend the College from 10.08.2017. Representation was made by the petitioner from 05.04.2018 seeking cancellation of her admission and discharge from the course. Respondent No.2 gave a reply requiring the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as penalty. Though representations were made to the Director of Medical Education ("DME" for short) requesting accommodation in another college, no reply was received. She also approached the MCI and the University, who also did not take any action. 5. It is contended that the respondent No.8-College was included in Annexures - K and K1 lists, as one of recognised colleges for MS-OBG and that the wrong representation resulted in her seeking and obtaining admission in the College while there was no actual recognition for the course in question. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the admission taken by the petitioner was to an unrecognised course, respondent No.8 as well as the KEA and the Government are duty bound to compensate the petitioner adequately for holding out wrong information to her. 7. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2643/2025. On these pleadings, the petitioner seeks the reliefs as sought for. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 has placed memo dated 20.11.2024 along with documents, the same is taken on record. It is contended that pursuant to the interim records passed by this Court, all original documents of the petitioner have been returned to her. On these pleadings, the petitioner seeks the reliefs as sought for. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 has placed memo dated 20.11.2024 along with documents, the same is taken on record. It is contended that pursuant to the interim records passed by this Court, all original documents of the petitioner have been returned to her. It is further stated that though admission was taken by the petitioner on 18.04.2017, she did not report before the College and reported only on 01.07.2017. She was permitted to join the college, thereafter, she herself had submitted a request dated 16.08.2017, which is produced as Annexure-R2 along with the reply filed by the respondent stating that she is unable to continue the Post Graduation ("PG" for short) course on health grounds (major depression) and had requested respondent No.8 to allow her to discontinue her PG course. Thereafter, she had not attended the College. 9. It is further contended that respondent No.8-College had all due recognition for MS-OBG in respect of one seat from the year 1980 and that such recognition had never ever been cancelled. It is submitted that thereafter the number of seats was increased from 1 to 4 from 2018- 19 onwards and further from 4 to 6 from 2019-20. It is submitted that though notices and communications had been issued by the MCI requiring respondent No.8 to submit their response with regard to de-recognition as contended by the petitioner, no such order of de-recognition had ever been passed by the MCI as against respondent No.8. 10. The learned counsel further contends that Section11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ("IMC Act" for short) provides for 'recognition' and reads as follows: " 11. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities of medical institutions of India .—(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. Recognition of medical qualifications granted by Universities of medical institutions of India .—(1) The medical qualifications granted by any University or medical institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purposes of this Act. (2) Any University or medical institution in India which grants a medical qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised, and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted after a specified date." 11. It is contended that the MS-OBG course conducted by respondent No.8 evidently had the recognition as is evident from the first schedule, which is produced as Annexure - R1 along with the memo filed by respondent No.8. 12. Section 19 of the IMC Act provides for withdrawal of recognition. " 19. Withdrawal of recognition .—[(1) When upon report by the Committee or the visitor, it appears to the Council- (a) that the courses of study and examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination, held by, any University or medical institution, or (b) that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for instruction and training provided in such University or medical institution or in any college or other institution affiliated to that University, do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council, the Council shall make a representation to that effect to the Central Government.] (2) After considering such representation, the Central Government may send it to the State Government of the State in which the University or medical institution is situated and the State Government shall forward it along with such remarks as it may choose to make to the University or medical institution, with an intimation of the period within which the University or medical institution may submit its explanation to the State Government. (3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Central Government. (3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Central Government. (4) The Central Government, after making such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that an entry shall be made in the appropriate Schedule against the said medical qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date [or that the said medical qualification if granted to students of a specified college institution affiliated to any University shall be a recognised medical qualification only when granted before a specified date or, as the case may be, that the said medical qualification shall be a recognised medical qualification in relation to a specified college or institution affiliated to any University only when granted after a specified date]." 13. It is contended that even if all the documents produced by the petitioner are accepted in toto, it is clear that no order under Section 19(4) of the IMC Act withdrawing recognition had ever been passed by the Central Government. Further, the recognition for the course had continued and additional seats had also been permitted and recognised in respect of MS-OBG as evidenced by Annexure - R2 produced along with the memo filed by respondent No.8. No order under Section 19(4) of the IMC Act had been passed by the Central Government. 14. The learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the KEA supports the contentions of respondent No.8. It is contended that the Writ Petitioner who had voluntarily discontinued her studies from 10.08.2017 due to personal reasons had not made any complaint before the KEA or the Government and had made the representation before respondent No.8 seeking return of fees only in May 2018. It is contended that the course had due recognition and that the contentions of the petitioner are completely unsupported. 15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, however, submits that it is evident from the materials produced by the writ petitioner that the course conducted by respondent No.8 did not have the required permission at the relevant time, that is, when the counselling was conducted for admission to the course and when the writ petitioner was admitted. 15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, however, submits that it is evident from the materials produced by the writ petitioner that the course conducted by respondent No.8 did not have the required permission at the relevant time, that is, when the counselling was conducted for admission to the course and when the writ petitioner was admitted. It is therefore contended that the act of the DME and the KEA in having conducted counselling for a seat which did not have recognition was clearly illegal and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the same. 16. We have considered the contentions advanced.Respondent No.8 has produced material to show that the MS-OBG course conducted by respondent No.8 was recognised from the year 1980 and was included in the schedule to the IMC Act. Though it appears that there were instances of non-compliance revealed in the inspections conducted by respondent No.6 and notices and intimations had been issued to respondent No.8, obviously, no order under Section 19(4) of the IMC Act withdrawing recognition had been passed as against respondent No.8 in respect of the course in question. Therefore, it is clear that the recognition for one seat in MS-OBG, which was granted in 1980 continued unabated. The course in question was a three year course and the petitioner, who joined on 01.07.2017 admittedly, discontinued the course on10.08.2017 and did not attend classes thereafter. 17. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the contention that the discontinuance of the course by the petitioner was on account of want of recognition cannot be accepted under any circumstances. The recognition evidently continued and had the petitioner continued with the course, she would have been duly granted the PG Degree on completion of the course. All original documents have also been returned to the petitioner pursuant to orders of this Court. 18. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was permitted to join duty as Insurance Medical Officer in an ESI Dispensary pursuant to orders passed by the Director of Insurance Scheme (State) Medical Services. Further, the original documents of the writ petitioner have also been returned to her by the college. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the further prayers raised in the writ petition are not liable to be granted. 19. Further, the original documents of the writ petitioner have also been returned to her by the college. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the further prayers raised in the writ petition are not liable to be granted. 19. The Writ Petition therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.