- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 1880 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. DR. L.S. CHANDRA KIRAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE SHIVANNAGOWDA D.C., WORKING AS DISTRICT CONSULTANT, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, RESIDING AT NO.91/92, 2ND MAIN, NEW KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, KATRIGUPPE, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY SPECIAL RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE AND Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. DR. MANOJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 4. DR. SANDEEP K.M., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CONSULTANT, SUVARANA SURAKSHA AROGYA TRUST, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. 5. DR. KENDOLE S. ROHIT KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 6. DR. NANDINI T.K., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 7. DR. SARASWATI K.R., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 8. DR. KEERTI MADHURYA M., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 9. SHRUTHI MANGOD AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. 10. DR. DEEPTI DARMARAJ SALI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION No. 219/2022 AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No. 219/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR ORDERS OR DIRECTION AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO GRANT BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The unsuccessful applicant in Application No.219/2022 has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner holds a Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree. While working as a District Consultant under the National Tobacco Control Program on a contractual basis, a recruitment notification was issued by respondent No.2 to fill the vacant posts of Senior Medical Officer/Specialist, General Medical Officers, and Dental Officers under the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services, in accordance with the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 Welfare Services (Recruitment of Senior Medical Officers/Specialists, General Duty Medical Officers, and Dental Health Officers) (Special) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Rules, 2020’). The petitioner submitted an application along with all requisite documents for the post of Dental Health Officer, for which 88 posts were notified, of which 25 posts were reserved for the Hyderabad Karnataka region. Respondent No.2 issued a call notice and conducted verification of the original documents. However, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the provisional selection list published thereafter. The petitioner filed an objection to this effect before respondent No.2, following which the Final Selection List was published. 4. The petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the Final Selection List dated 17.12.2021, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of Dental Health Officer in accordance with the Special Rules, 2020, and to issue the appointment order. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the application, holding that the petitioner’s service as a District Consultant in the Anti- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 Tobacco Cell did not qualify for service weightage. The Tribunal observed that such weightage is permissible only for candidates who have served in a Government Hospital, either on a contractual or regular basis, in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer, and that service as a District Consultant in the Anti-Tobacco Cell cannot be considered for this purpose. 5. Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal, submits that the petitioner was working under schemes administered under the National Health Mission in Karnataka, in the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services, on a contractual basis from 01.08.2013, and is therefore entitled to a service weightage of 2% for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 20%. It is further submitted that, if such weightage is granted, the petitioner, having the requisite qualifications, would have had a chance of selection. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, having served in a Government Hospital, is entitled to service weightage, and that, on account of its denial, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 candidates with lesser marks have been selected in the Final Selection List. 6. Per contra, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2- State, submits that, in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020, only a candidate who has served in a Government Hospital under the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services or the Directorate of Medical Education, or under schemes administered under the National Rural Health Mission or National Health Mission in Karnataka, either on a contractual or regular basis, in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer, is entitled to service weightage. 6.1 Learned AGA further submits that, undisputedly, the petitioner has worked as a District Consultant under the National Tobacco Control Program, which cannot be equated with the aforesaid posts, and, therefore, he is not entitled to weightage under Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that, after considering the aforementioned aspects, the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to service - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 weightage. Accordingly, learned AGA prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and have carefully perused the writ papers. 8. The petitioner, being a degree holder in Bachelor of Dental Surgery, and his eligibility for the notified post, is not in dispute. On that basis, the petitioner was called for verification of the original documents. Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020, provides for a service weightage of 2% for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 20%, which the petitioner claims. From the stand taken by the State, it is evident that the service weightage has been denied to the petitioner, relying on Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020. For ease of reference, Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services (Recruitment of Senior Medical Officer/Specialist, General Duty Medical Officers and Dental Health Officers) (Special) Rules, 2020, reads as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 "6.List of selected Candidates:- (1) The selection authority shall, from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the publication inviting applications under rule 5, prepare a list of candidates equal to the number of vacancies notified in the order of merit on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination and taking into consideration the weightage under sub-rule (2) and the orders, rules or any law in force, relating to reservation. (2) A weightage of two percent for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of twenty percent shall be given to a candidate, who has served in Government hospital coming under the purview of the Directorate of Health and Family welfare services or Medical Education and schemes coming under the purview of National Rural Health Mission or National Health Mission in Karnataka, either on contract or regular basis in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer." 9. The point of controversy pertains to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Special Rules, 2020. In support of his claim for service weightage, the petitioner has produced the experience certificate at Annexure-14, showing that he worked as a District Consultant in the National Anti-Tobacco Cell from 01.08.2013 to 30.09.2020, totaling a period of six years and eight months. This experience forms the basis of the petitioner’s claim. 10. Rule 6(2) provides for a service weightage of 2% for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 20%, for a candidate who has served in a Government Hospital under the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services or the Directorate of Medical Education, or under schemes administered under the National Rural Health Mission or National Health Mission in Karnataka, either on a contractual or regular basis, in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer. The petitioner contends that his service as a District Consultant in the Anti-Tobacco Cell, under a scheme administered under the National Health Mission, qualifies him for weightage. However, the critical aspect is the nature of the work in which the candidate has gained experience to claim such weightage. 11. It is not every appointment in a Government Hospital or under a scheme qualifies for service weightage. To claim the benefit, the candidate must have served, either on a contractual or regular basis, in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer. 12. In the present case, the petitioner’s claim concerns the dental category. The issue, therefore, is whether the petitioner’s experience as a District Consultant in the Anti- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 Tobacco Cell can be equated with service in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer. Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020, is explicit in stating that service weightage is available only to candidates who have served in the posts specified under the referred institutions and schemes. Neither the recruitment notification nor the Special Rules equate the post of District Consultant in the Anti-Tobacco Cell with the posts of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer. In the absence of such equivalence, it is impermissible to alter or reinterpret the plain language of Rule 6(2). It is undisputed that the petitioner has not served in the post of General Duty Medical Officer or Dental Health Officer. There is no provision to treat the post of District Consultant in the Anti-Tobacco Cell as equivalent to these posts. Accordingly, the petitioner’s contention that his appointment under the National Health Mission entitles him to service weightage is untenable. 13. The Tribunal, after considering the aforementioned aspects, has rightly held that the petitioner’s experience certificate and the service rendered by him are not in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31864-DB WP No. 1880 of 2024 conformity with Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020, and, accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to service weightage. 14. This Court, upon careful perusal and detailed analysis of Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020, and upon scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, is of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to service weightage under Rule 6(2) of the Special Rules, 2020. 15. The petitioner has not made out any exceptional or demonstrable ground to warrant interference with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23