Sponsored Links 1

Weightage for Rural Service in PG Medical Entrance in Karnataka – Judgement

The Judgement given by The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka regarding Weightage for Rural Service in PG Medical Entrance in Dr. T. Prathap And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka  case on  on 21 April, 2005 is worth reading

Weightage for Rural Service in PG Medical Entrance in Karnataka - Judgement

Weightage for Rural Service in PG Medical Entrance in Karnataka - Judgement

The petitioners in these cases have sought for a declaration that the service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service on contract basis granted by the Government Order bearing No. HFW 470 MPS 2004, dated 18-1-2005 (Annexure-‘B’ to the writ petitions) by the Clause reading “in case of service rendered as contract Doctors, the service weightage so admissible shall be 4 marks for every completed one year of service” is illegal and unconstitutional.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners are aspirants for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental and Diploma Courses for the academic year 2005-2006. They are in-service candidates prescribed under the Rules Governing Admission. They have taken the Entrance Test as in-service candidates. The 1st Petitioner though a Medical Officer in the services of the Government of Karnataka has taken the test as an open category candidate since he does not fall within the definition of ‘in-service candidate’ prescribed under the Rules governing admissions. They are aggrieved by the impugned Government Order providing for a service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year of service rendered as Contract Doctor. It is further contended that during the year 1992, pending direct recruitment as per Rules, as a stop gap arrangement, 380 Doctors were appointed on contract basis by the State Government. Applications were invited at the District level stipulating that the appointment is on contract basis, the appointees will not have any claim for regularisation or regular appointment and they will not be entitled to any emoluments except a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The appointments were on contract basis terminable at any time and the period of contract was stipulated as three years. Their appointment was purely contractual and no merited candidate applied in response. When the said Doctors were working on contract basis, in response to the Notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in the year 1995 most of these doctors working on contract basis also applied and failed to get a place in the select list due to their low merit. When the provisional select list was published in the year 1996 the contract doctors finding that most of them have failed to make it to the select list moved the Government for regularisation of their services and that their services were regularised as per the Notification dated 24-7-1997. The Rules under which regularisation was made as also the regularisation notification clearly stipulated that the services rendered on contract basis will not count for any purpose. Similar regularisation exercise was made by another notification dated 7-12-1999. It is alleged that the Government went on to accommodate the contract doctors is evident from the fact that while the candidates who came to be selected on their merit pursuant to the application invited by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short ‘KPSC’) in the year 1995, interviews held and provisional list and select list published in the year 1996 were appointed only on 25-7-1997 and the contract Doctors who failed to get selected in the KPSC selection and who had been appointed on contract basis without any screening and without any selection were given regular appointments with effect from 9-6-1997 by a Notification dated 24-7-1997. The very same misplaced benevolence in favour of contract doctors is evident from the impugned Government Order dated 18-1-2005. The Petitioners have urged that no weightage can be given for a period when the candidates could not be said to be in-service. The Contract Doctors are not members of service when the appointment on contract is contrary to the Statutory Recruitment Rules. It is not in substantive capacity. Therefore, giving service weightage of 4 marks for every completed one year service on contract basis as per the Government Notification dated 18-1-2005 is contrary to law.

The entire Judgement is available in Doctors and Law : Medical, Legal, Medicolegal Information for Doctors and Lawyers : Weightage for Rural Service in PG Medical Entrance in Karnataka – Judgement

Click here for the Full Judgement

Comments

  1. sir,i have been working as dental surgeon in orissa on contractual basis and have been posted at dist HQ hospital since 9 years. in orissa we only have dental surgeon post in HQ HOSPITAL.no rural posting is there in case of BDS. But as dci has laid the rule that inservice candidates who are working in remote rural or backward areas will get aadditinal marks @10% per year. what will happen to us. dist hq posting should not be taken for us.we donot come under remote rural and backward place,please help

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sponsored Links 2