logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 Kar HC 1906 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 35162 of 2025 (EDN-RES)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Parties : Dr. Shalini Govind & Others Versus The State Of Karnataka, Department Of Medical Education, Bengaluru Represented By Its Principal Secretary & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Nuruddin Khetty, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, Reuben Jacob, AAG a/w N. Anitha, AGA.
Date of Judgment : 01-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India  - Article 226-

Comparative Citation:
2025 KHC 49906,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to not to Decategorise the Inservice quota PG medical seats remaining unfilled after the first round of counselling for the Inservice candidates, and to retain the same until the reduction in the cut-off marks is announced by the NBE/MCC until the completion of the mop up/stray vacancy round.)

Oral Order:

Jayant Banerji. J.

1. Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  and Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Smt. N. Anita, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

                  "(i) Issue an order or direction or Writ in the Nature of Mandamus and direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to not to decategorise the Inservice quota PG Medical seats remaining unfilled after the first round of counseling for the Inservice candidates, and to retain the same until the reduction in the Cut-Off marks is announced by the NBE/MCC until the completion of the Mop up/Stray vacancy round,

                  (ii)  Issue any other Writ or Order or direction and grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. It is stated that 11 of the 13 petitioners have moved a representation before the respondents and others, in which, the grounds taken in the present writ petition have been raised. This representation has been sent to the Director of Medical Education and other authorities of the Government as well as the Karnataka Education Authority by means of an e-mail dated 12.11.2025. It is contented by learned counsel that respondent Nos.12 and 13 are posted in two other departments of the State Government namely, ESI and Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation, but their names do not appear in the representation.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has stated that the competent authority will take a decision in respect of the grievance of all the petitioners within a week.

5. Given the aforesaid statement made by the Additional Advocate General, this petition is disposed of, with a direction to  the  competent  authority  to  take  a  decision  on  the representation, dated 12.11.2025, treating it as being a representation on behalf of all the petitioners, within a period of one week.
 
  CDJLawJournal