Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, C.M. JOSHI, JJ.
The State Of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Madhu Kumar M H, S/o Hanumanthappa H. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.31104 of 2024 (S-KSAT)
Decided on : 28-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA
For the Respondent:SRI.SHANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE
The court affirmed the right to educational deputation under KCSR rules, emphasizing the need for timely government action on employee representations.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Services Rules, Appendix II-A - Educational deputation - The Tribunal directed consideration of an employee's representation for study leave for a Super Speciality course, emphasizing the normative basis for such deputation under KCSR rules. (Paras 2, 4(b), 4(d))
(B) Discretion in Government - The court noted that while discretion exists, it must be exercised reasonably and justly, especially in educational deputation cases. (Paras 4(b), 4(c))
(C) Public Interest - The court highlighted that value addition through education benefits both the individual and the institution, aligning with the welfare state principle. (Paras 4(d), 4(e))
Facts of the case:
The first respondent, a specialist physician, sought deputation for a Super Speciality course after clearing the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test. His representation was not considered, prompting him to approach the Tribunal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was justified as the government failed to act on the employee's timely representation.
Issues: The main issues included the right to seek educational deputation and the government's discretion in such matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the government must consider educational deputation requests reasonably, especially when they align with public interest and the employee's duties.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 Hospital, Mysore.
(b) The second petitioner i.e., the Commissioner for Health and Family Welfare Services, submitted a proposal to the government to consider his representation for sanction of study leave so that the employee would complete the course and come back after making value addition. This he did vide recommendation dated 3.4.2024 citing the need for undergoing the course inasmuch as there was dearth of doctors in the department with Super Speciality degrees. The said representation having not been considered despite recommendation, the employee moved the Tribunal which granted him the relief as mentioned above. Aggrieved thereby, this petition is filed.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that deputation of any kind in general and deputation for educational purpose in particular cannot be claimed as a matter of right; in any circumstance, a civil servant cannot say that even during deputation, he should be paid the salary, though he does not work during the said period; deputation for educational purpose is permissible only if there is an equivalent post in which ‘additionally educated/qualified’ civil servant can be accommodated; after making value addition at the cost of public exchequer, if the civil servant quits the public employment and goes in search of greener pasturage, it will be a drain on the public money. She argues that all these aspects having not been properly considered by the Tribunal, its order is liable to be voided. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He draws our attention to the Appendix-II-A of KCSR in reply to the submission of learned AGA and seeks dismissal of the petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) It hardly needs to be stated that, ordinarily deputation is a tripartite arrangement involving lending department, lent to department and deputationist. Deputation for making value addition is made normative by promulgating KCSR Appendix II-A Rules. Rule 1 vests discretion in the government to send its employees on deputation for prosecuting special course of study such as higher studies, specialized training in professional/technical subjects having a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty; such deputation is made to recognized institution within India. Rule 2 says such value addition should be advantageous to public interest. Rule 3 empowers the concerned departments to drop a programme about the requirements of trained personnel in the specialized field of works. Rule 4 prescribes that the number of deputat
