- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100142 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. V. SHRINIVAS S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR AND HOD OF PHARMACOLOGY DEPT. VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, BALLARI-583104, R/O: #27, B BLOCK, V NAGAPPA COLONY, HOSAPETE MAIN ROAD, CANTONMENT BALLARI, PINCODE-583104. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.L.PATIL, SRI S.S. BETURMATH AND SRI S.S.SONDUR, ADVOCATES.) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL, VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, DIST. BALLARI-583104, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN AND DIRECTOR. 3. THE VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 BALLARI-583104, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. DR. T. GANGADHAR GOUDA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC. PRESENTLY DIRECTOR VIMS BALLARI, VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, BALLARI-583104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – NOTICE SERVED; SRI J.M.ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.103668/2022 (S-RES) ON 20/03/2024 BY THE SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 20.03.2024, passed in W.P.No.103668/2022, whereunder the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 2. The factual matrix in a nutshell is that the 3rd respondent issued a notification dated 14.07.2022 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Director. It is the case of the appellant that he possess the required educational and eligibility criteria as per the National Medical Commission1 norms and Bye-laws of the 3rd respondent. Hence, the appellnat applied for the said post vide application dated 25.07.2022. Subsequently, the Government of Karnataka vide notification dated 19.08.2022, appointed the 4th respondent as a Director. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel Sri S.S.Sondur, appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that the appellant was the senior most of the candidates who were considered for appointment of Director of 3rd respondent, although the appellant had scored less marks than the 4th respondent, applying the rule of “seniority cum merit”, the appellant 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NMC’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 ought to have been appointed as a Director. It is further contended that the ground on which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition is that the appellant has faced a criminal case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and that the learned single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition in view of the fact that charges have not been framed and till the charges are framed, it cannot be construed that the appellant is alleged of a crime. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: i) Ram Negi v. Union of India2; ii) Union of India, etc., v. K.V.Jankiraman, etc.,3. 4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Sri G.K.Hiregoudar appearing for respondent No.1, Sri J.M.Anil Kumar, appearing for the 3rd respondent through video conferencing and learned counsel Sri Rajashekhar Burji, appearing for the 4th respondent justifies the order passed by the learned single Judge and contends that the 2 2022(5) SCC 150 3 AIR 1991 SC 2010 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 Director of the 3rd respondent having been appointed through a selection process, which has considered the most meritorious candidate and challenge to the said appointment of the Director of 3rd respondent having been rightly rejected by the learned single Judge, the said order ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 5. The submissions of the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 6. The question that arises for consideration is, “whether the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant?” 7. The NMC, vide notification dated 14.02.2022 issued the Teachers Eligibility Qualification in Medical Institutions Regulations, 20224, wherein Regulation 3.6 pertaining to the appointment of Dean/Director/Principal of Medical College/Institution, states as follows: “3.6. The position of Dean/Director/ Principal of Medical College/Institution should 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2022’. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 be held by a person possessing recognized postgraduate medical degree from a recognized institution with a minimum of ten years teaching experience as Professor/Associate Professor in a Medical College/Institution, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in the Department. Appointment to these posts shall be made on seniority-cum-merit basis. The Dean/Director/Principal of Medical Institution shall not hold the post of Head of the Department.” 8. The Rules and Regulations of the 3rd respondent called the “Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari, Rules and Regulations, 2013”5, provides under Regulation 18(3) that the governing council shall appoint the Dean cum Director through a selection process. Further, Bye-law 15 of the “Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari, Bye-laws, 2013”6, stipulates that the method of selection shall be on the basis of merit as provided therein. Bye-law 15(1) provides the criteria for the Director’s post and also provides for the various marks to be awarded in respect of the criterias mentioned in Bye-laws 15(1)(a) to (f). 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations-2013’. 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Bye-laws-2013’. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 9. It is undisputed that in the selection process undertaken for the selection of the Director to the 3rd respondent, the appellant secured a total of 10.5 marks against the maximum of 15 marks and the 4th respondent secured 13 marks (erroneously mentioned as 18.88 in the proceedings dated 18.08.2022). It is forthcoming from the proceedings dated 18.08.2022 (Annexure-M1) that 5 persons were considered in the selection process who were the five senior most persons eligible for appointment. 10. It is clearly forthcoming from the aforementioned that although the NMC Regulations 2022 provided for selection to the post of a Director of a Medical College/Institution on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, the Regulations and Bye-laws of the 3rd respondent specifically stipulates for appointment through a selection process, which is required to be on merit. In the present case, 5 persons including the appellant and the 4th respondent having been considered in the selection process, in which the 4th respondent having secured the highest marks, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 Government was justified in appointing the 4th respondent as the Director of the 3rd respondent. 11. The vehement contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being the senior most amongst the five persons that were considered for selection in the selection process ought to have been appointed notwithstanding the fact that the 4th respondent was more meritorious is ex-facie untenable and liable to be rejected having regard to the specific stipulation contained in the Regulations and Bye-laws applicable to the 3rd respondent, wherein the Director was required to be appointed through a selection process by merit. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Negi2, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the interpretation to the words “seniority-cum-merit”. 12. Although the learned single Judge has considered the fact that Crime No.9/2020 has been registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 13(1)(b) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the learned single Judge has recorded a finding that it would not be appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the appellant as a suitable candidate since he is faced with a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is relevant to note that the fact that a criminal case was registered against the appellant was not an aspect which was considered during the selection process, since the said fact was not known to the 3rd respondent. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V.Janakiraman3 will not aid the case of the appellant since the aspect regarding the criminal case being registered against the appellant was not considered either by the selection committee or is required to be considered for the purpose of considering the contention put forth in the present writ appeal. 13. In view of the afore mentioned discussion, the appellant has failed to make out any case for grant of relief as sought for by him in the writ petition and for interference in the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4127-DB WA No. 100142 of 2024 petition. Hence the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34