Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G. PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
State Of Karnataka, R/by The Prl. Secretary To Govt., Dept. Of Health And Family Welfare And Ayush Services – Appellant
Versus
Patil Sujata Shivanagowda @ Sujata S. Patil, D/o. Shivanagowda – Respondent
ORDER :
S.G. PANDIT, J.
The State authorities in the Health and Family Welfare and Ayush Services are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 18.02.2025 in Application No.11007/2024 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the respondent’s application questioning the Government Notification dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure-A34) posting the respondent as Senior Medical Officer/Physician to the Koppal District Ayurved Hospital is quashed with a further direction to the petitioners to consider the respondent’s eligibility in holding the post of District Ayush Officer, by considering the seniority list as well as earlier orders already passed in posting the applicant as District Ayush Officer and the order passed on 24.04.2024 in W.P.No.102509/2024 and to pass appropriate orders to post the respondent as District Ayush Officer.
2. The respondent who was working as Senior Medical Officer/Physician was posted as District Ayush Officer, Bellary. Thereafter, under Notification dated 28.08.2023, one Dr.B.S.Sarala Devi was posted as District Ayush Officer, Bellary. Aggrieved by the postin
No right exists for an individual to demand a specific governmental post; eligibility is evaluated based on established criteria and administrative discretion.
The government has inherent power to abolish posts without violating rights if no discrimination is shown; appointment rights depend on vacancies and must follow public selection procedures.
Executive appointments are valid in the absence of formal recruitment rules if conducted fairly and transparently, and only an aggrieved non-applicant can challenge such appointments.
The court affirmed that denial of charge to an eligible candidate based on arbitrary grounds violates principles of legitimate expectation and is subject to judicial review under Articles 14 & 16 of ....
The court ruled that the posts of DM & HO and ADPHO are distinct, and the petitioner should not have been relieved from her position without a vacancy.
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
