Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

The State Of Karnataka Represented By ... vs Dr Meghamala S Tavaragi
2025 Latest Caselaw 1424 Kant

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1424 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 July, 2025

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka Represented By ... vs Dr Meghamala S Tavaragi on 21 July, 2025

Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
                                                  -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
                                                            WA No. 100359 of 2022
                                                        C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022

                       HC-KAR



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                           DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                               PRESENT
                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                                                  AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

                                WRIT APPEAL NO.100359 OF 2022 (S-RES)
                                                  C/W
                                   WRIT APPEAL NO.100280 OF 2022

                      IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100359 OF 2022
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           REPRESENTED BY IT'S
                           PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
                           M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-530068.

                      2.   THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
                           OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
Digitally signed by
                           ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-530068.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

                      AND:

                      1.   DR. MEGHAMALA S.TAVARAGI,
                           AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
                           R/O: C/O: SHIVKUMAR TAVARAGI,
                           JAYANAGAR, 2ND CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
                           DHARWAD-580001.

                      2.   THE DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
                           HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, (DIMHANS)
                           REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR
                           P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.
                                      -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
                                               WA No. 100359 of 2022
                                           C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022

 HC-KAR




                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS    WRIT    APPEAL   IS    FILED    UNDER      SECTION   4   OF

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER     OF     THE     LEARNED           SINGLE   JUDGE     MADE      IN

W.P.NO.105429/2021       DATED       18.04.2022     AND   CONSEQUENTLY

DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND

EQUITY AND ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL

RELIEF'S AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF

THE CASE AND IN AID OF THE MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100280 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

THE DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL
HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES, (DIMHANS)
REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR,
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD-580001.

                                                             ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-530068.

2.   THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
                                      -3-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
                                               WA No. 100359 of 2022
                                           C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022

 HC-KAR



     OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL
     EDUCATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
     BENGALURE-530068.

3.   DR. MEGHAMALA S.TAVARAGI,
     AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
     R/O: C/O: SHIVKUMAR TAVARAGI,
     JAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
     DHARWAD-580001.

                                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)


      THIS     WRIT   APPEAL    IS    FILED    UNDER   SECTION     4    OF

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER     OF   THE    LEARNED        SINGLE    JUDGE   MADE   IN       W.P.

NO.105429/2021 DATED 18.04.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS

THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

AND ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF'S

AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

AND IN AID OF THE MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR, IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.



      THESE WRIT APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
              AND
              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                              -4-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB
                                       WA No. 100359 of 2022
                                   C/W WA No. 100280 of 2022

HC-KAR




                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

These intra Court writ appeals are filed at the hands of

the State Government represented by its Principal Secretary,

Department of Medical Education and the Dharwad Institute

of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, being aggrieved by

the impugned order passed by the learned single judge in

W.P.No.105429/2021 dated 18.04.2022.

2. The writ petition was filed at the hands of the

respondents seeking appropriate directions to the

respondents to quantify and to pay the allowances that the

writ petitioner was entitled during her period of deputation

for taking up PG-CET examination and to declare that Form

No.-19 which was executed by the writ petitioner on

06.06.2016 at Annexure-'C' is illegal and the said

undertaking is not binding on the petitioner. The learned

singe judge held that the undertaking given by the writ

petitioner was a bond to the effect that in the event

petitioner failed to return to the institute after acquiring

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

higher qualifications to serve the institution for a period of

ten years, the petitioner would be liable to pay the

Government a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-. The learned single

judge held that the condition imposed by the Director of

Medical Education in his order granting permission to the writ

petitioner to go on deputation to write and complete the PG-

CET examination with a condition that the petitioner will not

be entitled for pay and allowances during the period of her

deputation, is a condition which could not be imposed by the

director.

3. Learned AGA submits that when once the

petitioner has given an undertaking in Form No.-19 and

having accepted the order passed by the Director, DIMHANS,

where it is clearly stated that petitioner will not be entitled

for payment of allowances, such a writ petition could not

have been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai appearing for

respondent No.2 would support the submission made by the

learned AGA.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

5. We have heard the learned AGA, learned counsel

for the appellant-institution and the learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 and perused the appeal memo.

6. What is required to be noticed is the relevant

provision of Karnataka Civil Services Rules viz., Rule-61 of

the KCSR and Appendix-A of the KCSR. Rule 61(3) provides

that the deputation or grant of study leave to government

servants for higher studies or specialized training shall be

regulated in accordance with Appendix-II-A. Further, Clause-

8 of Appendix-A provides that during the period of

deputation, the candidate shall be eligible to draw salary i.e.

basic pay, DA, House Rent Allowances and City

Compensatory allowance which he would have drawn but for

her deputation for higher studies or specialized training.

However, it also provides that during the period of extension,

the Government Servant is eligible for leave salary only, as

provided under the Rules.

7. On facts, it is not disputed that on 08.06.2016,

the petitioner was relived from duty, having executed Form

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

No.-19 and it is also not disputed that the petitioner after

completing her post graduation in MD(Psychiatry) was

relieved from KIMS Educational Institution, Hubballi and was

directed to report to DIMHANS. After reporting for duty at

DIMHANS, the petitioner gave a representation seeking

payment of salary and other service benefits through her

representation dated 31.10.2018. When no orders were

passed, the petitioner filed W.P.No.113383/2019 and the

learned single judge disposed of the writ petition on

20.08.2020 directing the Director of DIMHANS to consider

the representation dated 31.10.2018 given by the writ

petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Pursuant to the said directions, the Director, DIMHANS

passed the impugned order at Annexure-'R' dated

20.08.2020 / 08.11.2020 holding that the writ petitioner is

not entitled for the pay and allowance in view of the

undertaking given by the writ petitioner.

8. The main contention of the learned AGA and

learned counsel for the appellant-institution is that for the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

purpose of being qualified to take up the PG-CET

examination, the writ petitioner was required to have five

years of qualifying service which admittedly, the writ

petitioner did not have. The writ petitioner had only three

years of qualifying service and therefore, she was not

entitled to take up PG-CET examination as a in-service

candidate. However, by relaxing the requirement of five

years to three years, the writ petitioner was permitted to

take up the examination that is the reason why such a

condition was imposed by the Director, DIMHANS while

granting permission to the writ petitioner to take up PG-CET

examination.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a

condition could not have been imposed by the Director,

DIMHANS while granting permission firstly, since, such

condition would be contrary to the provision of the rules and

secondly, the undertaking given by the writ petitioner in the

Form No.19 is as per the prescribed format. There are two

contingencies quoted in the format. The first contingency is

whether the candidate though clears the examination does

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

not report back to the institution under such circumstances,

the candidate is required to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to

the institution. The second contingency is where the

candidate does not complete the examination and acquire

higher qualification within the period stipulated. Under the

second circumstances, the Form No.19 prescribes that the

candidate shall repay the allowances which the candidate

secured during the said period. We find from the undertaking

given by the respondent, that the same is not in the

prescribed format-Form No.19. The charges made, not

being in accordance with the format, the undertaking

obtained from the respondent is illegal. Further, having

regard to the undisputed facts neither of the two

contingencies would apply in the case of the writ petitioner.

It is not disputed that after the writ petitioner cleared the

examination, the writ petitioner came back to the institution

and joined the service immediately after being relived by the

KIMS Education institution where writ petitioner took up PG-

CET examination. The learned single judge is therefore right

in holding that such a condition could not have been imposed

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9028-DB

HC-KAR

by the Director, DIMHANS while granting permission to the

writ petitioner to go on deputation for higher studies.

10. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion

that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed

by the learned single judge.

11. Consequently, we are proceeded to dismiss both

the writ appeals.

Sd/-

(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

HMB CT: UMD

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter