Karnataka HC Relief to Doctor, Allows Permission for Deputation to Pursue Higher Studies

Bengaluru: Granting relief to a doctor, the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed the plea filed by the State Health and Family Welfare Department, which questioned the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), through which the State was directed to consider the doctor's representation for permission to go on deputation for higher studies.

The KSAT issued an order, on August 9, 2024, in favour of the doctor- a specialist physician working at KR Hospital in Mysuru. Although the State challenged the KSAT order, the HC Division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and C M Joshi dismissed the plea.

After joining his post as a 'specialist physician' w.e.f 20.07.2018, the doctor had applied through proper channel for the National Eligibility-Entrance Test-Super Speciality-2023 conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences. He cleared the test and based on his merit tanking, the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, allotted him a seat in DNBSS Cardiology programme, a three-year Super Speciality course in Medical Science, at Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore.

Meanwhile, the Commissioner for Health and Family Welfare Services, who is also the petitioner in this case, submitted a proposal to the Government to consider his representation for the sanction of study leave so that the employee would complete the course and come back after making value addition. This was done through the recommendation dated 03.04.2024 citing the need to undergo the course in as much as there was a dearth of doctors in the Department with Super Speciality degrees.

Also Read: Higher studies of doctors cannot be thwarted by anyone, Madras HC relief to DNB General Surgery aspirant

However, since this representation was not considered despite the recommendation, the employee moved to the Tribunal which granted him relief. Aggrieved by this, the State filed the plea before the High Court.

The counsel for the State argued that the deputation of any kind in general and deputation for educational purpose in particular cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in any circumstances, a civil servant cannot say that even during deputation, he should be paid the salary, though he does not work during the said period. 

As per the State counsel, deputation for educational purposes is permissible only if there is an equivalent post in which 'additionally educated/qualified' civil servant can be accommodated. She argued that after making value addition at the cost of public exchequer, if the civil servant quits the public employment and goes in search of greener pasturage, it will be a drain on the public money.

While considering the matter, the HC bench observed that ordinarily deputation is a tripartite arrangement involving lending department, lent to department and deputationist.

The Court noted that deputation for making value addition is made normative by promulgating KCSR Appendix II-A Rules. Referring to the Rules, the Court observed, "...the submission of learned AGA that there is no right whatsoever to seek deputation for value addition, is bit difficult to countenance. There is some discretion lying with the Government in matters of value addition deputation, is true."

"In the instant case, the representation of the respondent – employee was kept in cold storage even when he had successfully completed the Test in question which is obviously competitive and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly interfered," further noted the High Court.

The Court rejected the State counsel's argument that after making value addition, deputationists may quit the public employment and go for greener pasture and that would cause enormous loss to the Public Exchequer., after noting that the Government Servant, who is selected for deputation for higher studies or specialized training has to execute a bond in Form No.19 appended to these Rules, before he is relieved of his duties.

At this outset, the court noted that the doctor would not have any option to retire from service voluntarily under the provisions of Rule 285 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules either during the period of deputation or within a period of three years from the date of his return to duty after expiry of the period of deputation.

Apart from this Rule requirement, the counsel for the doctor informed that the doctor would give an undertaking with an assurance to report back to duty immediately after making value addition and would serve the Department for a period of ten years.

"This should alleviate the apprehension vehemently expressed by the learned AGA that public money would be drained, by sending the employees on educational deputation," noted the Court.

"Value addition is always advantageous to the individual and to the institution in which he/she is employed. That is the reason why Rules of the kind have been promulgated providing for deputation on normative basis and thereby minimizing the level of likely arbitrariness. Service Jurisprudence in any civilized jurisdiction, bears abundant testimony to the State Policy in public employment for bestowing increments/ allowances/encomia to the civil servants who acquire higher educational qualifications during employment," the HC bench further observed.

Further noting that Article 42 enacts a Directive Principle injuncting the State to provide just and humane conditions of work/service, the Court held that the State was not justified in keeping employee's claim for educational deputation, especially when admission courses of the kind are time bound and liable to lapse if not availed.

"Expeditious decision therefore is eminently warranted in matters of the kind. No such expeditiousness nor seriousness warranted in the matter having been shown, the Tribunal is more than justified in granting relief to the respondent – employee," the Court noted.

Regarding the State's submission that no employee can claim deputation of the kind in the absence of a suitable equivalent post available for accommodating him after value addition, the Court disagreed with this contention noting that the doctor aspires to get admitted to a higher educational course, which has a great nexus to the kind of duties attached to his post.

"It is not that something irrelevant is being studied and that would not improve the quality of discharge of such duties. That is not the pleaded case of the petitioners before the Tribunal. The stand of the Government gives an impression that the employee concerned in no circumstance be permitted deputation for making value addition of the kind," the Court observed while granting relief to the doctor and dismissing the plea by the State.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/karnataka-hc-order-deputation-263763.pdf

Also Read: Karnataka HC orders State to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to MBBS candidate for denial of seat under sports quota