Back
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, C. M. JOSHI
State Of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Madhu Kumar M H, S/o Hanumanthappa H. – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
State & its official are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 09.08.2024, whereby, the first respondent’s Application No.2860/2024 having been favoured, a direction has been issued to the first petitioner to consider employee’s representation for permission to go on deputation for higher studies, in the light of second petitioner’s recommendation in the light of Rules under KCSR Appendix II-A. The Tribunal has prescribed a period of two weeks for accomplishing the mandate.
2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:
(a) First respondent has been working as ‘specialist physician’ w.e.f. 20.07.2018; he had applied through proper channel for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Super Speciality-2023 conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences. He successfully cleared the test. Based on his merit ranking, the Medical Counseling Committee (MCC), DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, allotted him a seat in DNBSS Cardiology programme. This happens to be a three year Super Speciality course in Medical Science, at Apollo BGS Hos
The court affirmed the right to educational deputation under KCSR rules, emphasizing the need for timely government action on employee representations.
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave injustices and does not allow the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of lower tribunals.
A deputationist has no vested right and can be repatriated for valid reasons, and public interest and administrative exigencies are valid grounds for transfer.
Consent is not required for posting to a government-controlled body, and the equivalence of posts negates claims of adverse impact on service conditions.
Point of law: Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings Under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unr....
Deputationists do not have an indefeasible right to remain in the borrowing department permanently; repatriation to the parent department is justified after five years of service on deputation.
A deputationist lacks an indefeasible right to remain in a position, and authorities can recall employees based on service exigencies without breaching natural justice principles if no prejudice is c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
