Karnataka High Court
Dr. Jayasukrutamma. D. N vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.28560 OF 2018 (EDN-MED-ADM)
BETWEEN:
DR. JAYASUKRUTAMMA D.N.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O DR. RAKESH SAHU
3A, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
M.M. LAYOUT
KAVALBYRASANDRA
R.T. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(MEDICAL EDUCATION), VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. DIRECTOR
THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
ANAND RAO CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 009
3. KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
-
2
SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 012
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
5. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME
(STATE) MEDICAL SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
(ESIS (M) SERVICES)
S. NIJALINGAPPA ROAD
2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010
6. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
POCKET-14, SECTOR-8
DWARKA PHASE-1
NEW DELHI-110 077, INDIA
7. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 041
8. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SHAMPURA MAIN ROAD
KADUGONDANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 045
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5;
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R7;
SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
-
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
No.DME/PGS/5/2018-19 DATED 28.04.2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-M AND COMMUNICATION BEARING
No.VAIDYARU/132/12-13/144/2017-18 DATED 23.03.2018
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-R AND THE COMMUNICATION
BEARING No.VAIDYARU/132/12-13/144/2017-18 DATED
03.05.2017 (YEAR OUGHT TO BE 2018) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-T, AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO ARTICLES 14, 16
AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:
(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction,
quashing the communication bearing
No.DME/PGS/5/2018-19 dated 28.4.2018
produced at Annexure-M and communication
bearing Vaidyaru/132/12-13/144/2017-18
dated 23.3.2018 produced at Annexure-R
and the communication bearing
No.Vaidyaru/132/12-13/144/2017-18 dated
03.05.2017 (Year ought to be 2018)
produced at Annexure-T, as illegal and
-
opposed to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India;
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order or direction
directing the respondents to consider the
representation dated 10.5.2018 produced at
Annexure-M3 and the representations dated
14.05.2018 produced at Annexure M4,
Annexure M5, and Annexure M6, and direct
the Respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7 to
accommodate the petitioner in a MCI
recognized subject and college of her choice
to meet the ends of justice;
(C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order or direction
directing the respondents to pay salary to
the petitioner on month to month basis and
also all the arrears ever since she joined the
course till the date of relief to meet the ends
of justice.
(D) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ order or direction
holding that the period from 30.06.2017 to
till joining to such transferred college be
considered as time spent on duty to meet the
ends of Justice.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
(E) Issue a writ of mandamus or
direction holding that the bonds executed by
the petitioner vide Annexure-H, Annexure -
-
H1 and Annexure H2 on 23.6.2017 have no
force in the eye of law.
(F) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ order or direction
directing the respondents to cancel the
petitioners admission and discharge the
petitioner from the MS-OBG course from 8th
Respondent with immediate effect, refund
the petitioner all the fees paid by the
petitioner along with the interest at 12% per
annum and also return all original documents
of the petitioner presented during admission,
to meet the ends of Justice.
(G) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to allow the
petitioner to join back to the Government
service as Insurance Medical Officer at
Basavanagudi ESI Dispensary, from where
she was relieved with immediate effect and
the service be regularized without any break,
and the period from 30.06.2017 to till joining
back to ESIS Medical Services, be considered
as spent on duty to meet the ends of Justice.
(H) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ order or direction
directing the respondents to pay the
petitioner a compensation equivalent to the
total amount of gross salary, along with
regular arrears, with all the increments with
the 6th pay commission revised scale, along
-
with the interest during the period from the
date of reporting to the college i.e., from 01
July 2017 till the date of reporting back to
the ESIS Dispensary at Basavanagudi, to
meet the ends of Justice.
(I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the respondents to permit the
petitioner to write all the ensuing Post
Graduate Entrance Examinations, NEET/DNB
Board Examinations etc, from the next
academic year 2019-20 without any
impediment to meet the ends of Justice.
(J) Issue a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ or order or direction
directing the respondents to consider her
representation produced at Annexure-L dated
05.04.2018 and grant the relief as prayed
therein to meet the ends of justice.
(K) Grant the petitioner the cost of this
proceeding.
2. We have heard Shri. M. Narayana Bhat, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. Sudev Hegde,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5, Shri. N.K. Ramesh, learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 7, Shri. N.
-
Khetty learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and
Shri. Abhishek Malipatil learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 8.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the petitioner was admitted to Master
of Surgery Course in Obstetrics and Gynecology ("MS-OBG"
for short) at respondent No.8-College in the in-service
quota. She was relieved of her duties by respondent No.5
and joined the college on 01.07.2017 by paying the fee of
Rs.4,40,000/- through Karnataka Examinations Authority
("KEA" for short) and Rs.48,700/- directly to the College.
4. It is contended that the College did not have
recognition to conduct the MS-OBG course in 2017-18 and
the Medical Council of India ("MCI" for short) had declined
the renewal of admission by its letter dated 23.06.2017. The
reliance of Annexures - J, J1 and W-13, are placed on
record, in support of this contention. This fact was not
informed either by the College or the KEA or the
Government and she suffered stress and trauma due to this
-
fact. She therefore could not attend the College from
10.08.2017. Representation was made by the petitioner
from 05.04.2018 seeking cancellation of her admission and
discharge from the course. Respondent No.2 gave a reply
requiring the petitioner to pay a further sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as penalty. Though representations were
made to the Director of Medical Education ("DME" for short)
requesting accommodation in another college, no reply was
received. She also approached the MCI and the University,
who also did not take any action.
5. It is contended that the respondent No.8-College
was included in Annexures - K and K1 lists, as one of
recognised colleges for MS-OBG and that the wrong
representation resulted in her seeking and obtaining
admission in the College while there was no actual
recognition for the course in question.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that since the admission taken by the
petitioner was to an unrecognised course, respondent No.8
-
as well as the KEA and the Government are duty bound to
compensate the petitioner adequately for holding out wrong
information to her.
7. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the
order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No.2643/2025. On these pleadings, the petitioner
seeks the reliefs as sought for.
8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.8 has placed memo dated 20.11.2024 along with
documents, the same is taken on record. It is contended
that pursuant to the interim records passed by this Court, all
original documents of the petitioner have been returned to
her. It is further stated that though admission was taken by
the petitioner on 18.04.2017, she did not report before the
College and reported only on 01.07.2017. She was
permitted to join the college, thereafter, she herself had
submitted a request dated 16.08.2017, which is produced as
Annexure-R2 along with the reply filed by the respondent
stating that she is unable to continue the Post Graduation
-
("PG" for short) course on health grounds (major
depression) and had requested respondent No.8 to allow her
to discontinue her PG course. Thereafter, she had not
attended the College.
9. It is further contended that respondent No.8-
College had all due recognition for MS-OBG in respect of one
seat from the year 1980 and that such recognition had
never ever been cancelled. It is submitted that thereafter
the number of seats was increased from 1 to 4 from 2018-
19 onwards and further from 4 to 6 from 2019-20. It is
submitted that though notices and communications had
been issued by the MCI requiring respondent No.8 to submit
their response with regard to de-recognition as contended
by the petitioner, no such order of de-recognition had ever
been passed by the MCI as against respondent No.8.
10. The learned counsel further contends that Section
11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ("IMC Act" for
short) provides for 'recognition' and reads as follows:
"11. Recognition of medical qualifications
granted by Universities of medical institutions of
-
India.--(1) The medical qualifications granted by any
University or medical institution in India which are
included in the First Schedule shall be recognised medical
qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any University or medical institution in India
which grants a medical qualification not included in the
First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to
have such qualification recognised, and the Central
Government, after consulting the Council, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, amend the First
Schedule so as to include such qualification therein, and
any such notification may also direct that an entry shall
be made in the last column of the First Schedule against
such medical qualification declaring that it shall be a
recognised medical qualification only when granted after a
specified date."
11. It is contended that the MS-OBG course
conducted by respondent No.8 evidently had the recognition
as is evident from the first schedule, which is produced as
Annexure - R1 along with the memo filed by respondent
No.8.
12. Section 19 of the IMC Act provides for withdrawal
of recognition.
-
"19. Withdrawal of recognition.--[(1) When
upon report by the Committee or the visitor, it appears to
the Council-
(a) that the courses of study and
examination to be undergone in, or the
proficiency required from candidates at
any examination, held by, any University
or medical institution, or
(b) that the staff, equipment,
accommodation, training and other
facilities for instruction and training
provided in such University or medical
institution or in any college or other
institution affiliated to that University, do
not conform to the standards prescribed
by the Council, the Council shall make a
representation to that effect to the
Central Government.]
(2) After considering such representation, the
Central Government may send it to the State Government
of the State in which the University or medical institution
is situated and the State Government shall forward it
along with such remarks as it may choose to make to the
University or medical institution, with an intimation of the
period within which the University or medical institution
may submit its explanation to the State Government.
(3) On the receipt of the explanation or, where
no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then
on the expiry of that period, the State Government shall
make its recommendations to the Central Government.
-
(4) The Central Government, after making such
further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit, may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that an entry
shall be made in the appropriate Schedule against the
said medical qualification declaring that it shall be a
recognised medical qualification only when granted before
a specified date [or that the said medical qualification if
granted to students of a specified college institution
affiliated to any University shall be a recognised medical
qualification only when granted before a specified date or,
as the case may be, that the said medical qualification
shall be a recognised medical qualification in relation to a
specified college or institution affiliated to any University
only when granted after a specified date]."
13. It is contended that even if all the documents
produced by the petitioner are accepted in toto, it is clear
that no order under Section 19(4) of the IMC Act
withdrawing recognition had ever been passed by the
Central Government. Further, the recognition for the course
had continued and additional seats had also been permitted
and recognised in respect of MS-OBG as evidenced by
Annexure - R2 produced along with the memo filed by
respondent No.8. No order under Section 19(4) of the IMC
Act had been passed by the Central Government.
-
14. The learned Additional Government Advocate as
well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the KEA
supports the contentions of respondent No.8. It is contended
that the Writ Petitioner who had voluntarily discontinued her
studies from 10.08.2017 due to personal reasons had not
made any complaint before the KEA or the Government and
had made the representation before respondent No.8
seeking return of fees only in May 2018. It is contended
that the course had due recognition and that the contentions
of the petitioner are completely unsupported.
15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.6, however, submits that it is evident from the materials
produced by the writ petitioner that the course conducted by
respondent No.8 did not have the required permission at the
relevant time, that is, when the counselling was conducted
for admission to the course and when the writ petitioner was
admitted. It is therefore contended that the act of the DME
and the KEA in having conducted counselling for a seat
which did not have recognition was clearly illegal and the
petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the same.
-
16. We have considered the contentions advanced.
Respondent No.8 has produced material to show that the
MS-OBG course conducted by respondent No.8 was
recognised from the year 1980 and was included in the
schedule to the IMC Act. Though it appears that there were
instances of non-compliance revealed in the inspections
conducted by respondent No.6 and notices and intimations
had been issued to respondent No.8, obviously, no order
under Section 19(4) of the IMC Act withdrawing recognition
had been passed as against respondent No.8 in respect of
the course in question. Therefore, it is clear that the
recognition for one seat in MS-OBG, which was granted in
1980 continued unabated. The course in question was a
three year course and the petitioner, who joined on
01.07.2017 admittedly, discontinued the course on
10.08.2017 and did not attend classes thereafter.
17. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the contention that the discontinuance of the
course by the petitioner was on account of want of
-
recognition cannot be accepted under any circumstances.
The recognition evidently continued and had the petitioner
continued with the course, she would have been duly
granted the PG Degree on completion of the course. All
original documents have also been returned to the petitioner
pursuant to orders of this Court.
18. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was permitted to
join duty as Insurance Medical Officer in an ESI Dispensary
pursuant to orders passed by the Director of Insurance
Scheme (State) Medical Services. Further, the original
documents of the writ petitioner have also been returned to
her by the college. In the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, the further prayers raised in the writ petition
are not liable to be granted.
19. The Writ Petition therefore fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
-
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
cp*
