Karnataka High Court
Dr Shashikant Nikam vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2022
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav, K.S.Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL No.100110 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. SHASHIKANT NIKAM
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC:PROFESSOR &
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY
BIMS, BELAGAVI,TQ & DIST:BELAGAVI-590001.
....APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRL. SECRETARY TO DEPT.
OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANASOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
BELAGAVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
(BIMS), DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BELAGAVI, DIST:BELAGAVI-590001.
3. DR. MAHARUDHRA S/O SHIVAPPA SHEKHANNAWAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC:ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY, BIMS,
BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST:BELAGAVI-590001.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1)
2
(SRI. VEERESH R BUDIHAL, ADV. FOR R2)
(SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADV. FOR C/R3)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.117856/2019 AND WP 109426/2019 IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ appeal is filed by respondent No.3
in writ proceedings, challenging the interim order dated
24.1.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP
No.117856/2019 & WP No.109426/2019, whereby the
learned Single Judge has directed the State Government to
depute a person who has the qualification of a Professor
with medical background at any autonomous Institute as
the HOD of Bio-chemistry at Belagavi Institute of Medical
Sciences (for short, 'BIMS'). Further, the learned Single
Judge had directed that the Government may also
reconsider increasing the number of sanctioned post of
Professors at the Department of Bio-chemistry, BIMS. It
was further observed by the learned Single Judge that the
deputation shall be until a suitable candidate is available in
BIMS for appointment as a Professor, who may be
appointed as HOD of Bio-chemistry. Three months' time
was granted to the government to comply with the
direction of the said order.
2. The parties are referred to by their ranking in
the writ petition for the purpose of convenience.
3. The aforesaid writ petition came to be filed by
Dr. Maharudra S Shekhannavar, who is respondent No.3 in
the present writ appeal challenging the order at Annexure-
N, whereby there was a direction that the petitioner was to
hand over the charge to respondent No.3, who is the
appellant in this proceedings.
4. Various contentions have been raised by the
parties. It is the contention of respondent No.3 that the
clarification of Medical Council of India (for short, 'MCI'),
which is referred to by the learned Single Judge was to the
effect that the MCI in terms of the order dated 11.12.2019
had advised the college authorities to appoint a Professor
with MD qualification as HOD, failing which, they may seek
prior permission from the MCI to promote non-medical
professor as HOD. It is pointed out that the MCI had
clarified and granted approval for appointment of Dr.
Shashikant Nikam, who is respondent No.3 as the HOD, if
no eligible medical teacher is available to the post of HOD
till date.
5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 is the
only Professor in the Bio-chemistry Department. The
question as to whether the petitioner is eligible for being
appointed/designated as HOD in light of the petitioner
possessing MBBS degree is a matter still to be decided by
the learned Single Judge. It is also not in dispute that
respondent No.3 has seniority vis-à-vis the petitioner. In
fact, it is also for the learned Single Judge to look into
Annexure-B as well as Annexure-C, which apparently
refers to the seniority of the petitioner. Insofar as
direction to the State Government is concerned, such
direction ought not to have been made at the interim
stage, when the matter has not yet been disposed of.
Decisions of administrative nature including the deputation
of a person, increasing the number of sanctioned posts etc
are matters wholly within the jurisdiction of the State
Government and to grant a period of three months' time
for implementation of such direction would have the effect
of pre-judging the matter at the interim stage.
6. As also pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate, such directions are far reaching and essentially
are administrative decisions to be taken by the authorities
and whether with or without direction, the government
would look into all the facts and circumstances of the case
and take appropriate decision.
7. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order
though in the nature of interim order has the effect of pre-
judging the merits of the matter and will have the effect of
rendering final prayer of the petitioner infructuous, in the
event, the State were to implement the direction as made
out in the interim prayer. Accordingly, such directions
made to the State Government are not legally tenable and
liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, we set-aside the order
dated 24.1.2022 and request the learned Single Judge to
dispose of the matter on merits itself expeditiously, as the
pleadings are complete. It is further to be noticed that the
observations made hereinabove are limited for disposal of
the appeal filed against the interim order dated 24.1.2022
and not to be construed as any finding made on merits.
8. With the above observations, writ appeal is
allowed. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
