Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr Samhita Ullod on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.668 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
IN
W.P. NO.25176 OF 2017 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH
DHANVANTRI ROAD
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT
DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL
SRI JAYACHAMARAJENDRA INSTITUTE
OF INDIAN MEDICINE
GOVT AUYRVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
DHANVANTHRI ROAD
2
BENGALURU-560001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MRS. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)
AND:
DR. SAMHITA ULLOD
D/O MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT 4225, SOUPARNIKA
2ND A MAIN, NEAR SEETHA CIRCLE
GIRINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 085.
... RESPONDENT
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/02/2019 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.25176/2017. ISSUE
ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal emanates from an order
dated 18.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge by
which writ petition preferred by the respondent has
been allowed.
2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that respondent was admitted to
Shri.B.M.Kankanvadi Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya
Shahpur, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Mahavidyalaya' for short) against a government quota
seat. The aforesaid Mahavidyalaya is an aided and
recognized private college affiliated to Karnataka
Lingayat Education Society (KLE) deemed university.
The respondent completed 1st year of B.A.M.S.
course. The respondent submitted an representation
on 21.12.2013 seeking her transfer to a B.A.M.S.
course in Government Ayurveda College at Bangalore
or Mysore. The State Government by an order dated
15.03.2013 permitted the respondent to be admitted
in Government Ayurveda College, Bangalore. However,
a condition was imposed that the respondent shall not
be entitled to stipend.
3. The respondent sent a communication on
24.05.2016 requesting the Director to relax the
condition of non payment of stipend. Thereafter
communications dated 18.08.2016 and 01.09.2016
were also sent by the petitioner. However, vide a
cryptic reply dated 21.10.2016, the respondent was
informed that she is not eligible to receive the stipend.
The respondent thereupon again submitted a
representation on 21.11.2016. However, by an
endorsement dated 30.03.2017, the claim of the
respondent for sanction of stipend was rejected.
4. The respondent challenged the orders dated
15.03.2011, 21.10.2016 and 30.03.2017 in a writ
petition and sought a writ of mandamus to the
appellants herein to pay stipend to the respondent.
The learned Single Judge by an order dated
18.02.2019 has allowed the writ petition preferred by
the respondent. In the aforesaid factual background,
this appeal has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the claim of the respondent for grant
of stipend was rejected. On the basis of the
Government Order dated 15.10.2008, which was not
challenged in the writ petition and the learned Single
Judge without quashing the same could not have
granted the relief to the respondent. It is further
submitted that respondent is not entitled to claim
stipend. In view of the conditions contained in the
order dated 15.03.2013.
6. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record. According
to concise Oxford Dictionary, the expression 'stipend'
means a regular sum paid as a salary or as expenses
to a clergyman, teacher or public official. Thus,
'stipend' is considered to be in the nature of a salary.
It is trite law that non payment of a salary to an
employee is violative of Article 21 of Constitution of
India. Thus, right to receive stipend during internship
has trappings of a fundamental right. It is trite law
that fundamental rights cannot be waived.
7. The learned Single Judge therefore, has
rightly quashed the Government Order dated
15.03.2013 and communication dated 21.10.2016
only to the extent denying stipend to the respondent.
So far as submission that the learned Single Judge
ought to have quashed the order dated 15.10.2008
passed by the State Government is concerned, the
same provides general guidelines in case of students
seeking transfer from one institution to another. In
case of respondent, an order dated 15.03.2013 was
passed on the basis of a Government Order dated
15.10.2008 and therefore, the same has been
quashed.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
