High Court of Karnataka Quashes Allotment List in PG Medical Seat Dispute Due to Violation of Reservation Policy. Court Directs Reconsideration of Petitioner's Candidature Under In-Service Quota Based on Original Seniority.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 23:31:27

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Rajini C.K., a medical officer working at a Primary Health Centre in Mandya District, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. She challenged the allotment list dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Karnataka Examinations Authority (4th respondent) for PG medical seats under the in-service quota. The petitioner claimed that she had 4 years of service and was senior to the 6th respondent, Dr. Sunil Kumar H.B., who was allotted a seat. She alleged that the authorities failed to follow the correct seniority list and reservation policy, resulting in her being denied a seat. The petitioner sought quashing of the allotment list and a direction to consider her representation dated 25.10.2023. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka, Directorate of Medical Education, ESIS Medical Services, Karnataka Examinations Authority, National Medical Commission, and Dr. Sunil Kumar H.B., opposed the petition. The court, after hearing arguments, found that the allotment was made without proper application of the seniority list and reservation policy. The court quashed the allotment list to the extent it affected the petitioner and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature in accordance with law, giving her the benefit of her original seniority. The judgment emphasized that administrative decisions must be transparent and adhere to established rules.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Medical Education - In-Service Quota - Seniority - The petitioner, a medical officer, challenged the allotment list dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Karnataka Examinations Authority for PG medical seats under the in-service quota, claiming that she was senior to the 6th respondent and should have been allotted a seat. The court held that the authorities must follow the seniority list and reservation policy correctly, and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's candidature. (Paras 1-10)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the allotment list and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2023, emphasizing that administrative actions must be fair and in accordance with law. (Paras 1-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the allotment of PG medical seats under the in-service quota was valid when the petitioner, who was senior to the selected candidate, was denied a seat due to alleged incorrect application of reservation policy and seniority list.

Final Decision

The court quashed the allotment list dated 20.10.2023 to the extent it affects the petitioner and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's candidature in accordance with law, giving her the benefit of her original seniority.

Law Points

Reservation policy
In-service quota
Seniority
Allotment
Medical education
Writ jurisdiction
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (01) 10

Writ Petition No.24070 of 2023 (EDN-RES)

2024-01-19

P.S. Dinesh Kumar, T.G. Shivashankare Gowda

Shri. G.S. Kannur (Senior Advocate for Shri. R. Girishkumar) for petitioner; Shri. Sudev Hegde (AGA) for R1 to R3; Shri. N.K. Ramesh for R4; Shri. N. Khetty for R5; Smt. Belle Ravivarma Kumar for R6

Dr. Rajini C.K.

State of Karnataka, Directorate of Medical Education, Director ESIS Medical Services, Karnataka Examinations Authority, National Medical Commission, Dr. Sunil Kumar H.B.

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging allotment list for PG medical seats under in-service quota.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of allotment list dated 20.10.2023 and direction to consider representation dated 25.10.2023.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed she was senior to the 6th respondent but was denied a seat due to incorrect application of seniority and reservation policy.

Issues

Whether the allotment list dated 20.10.2023 is valid when the petitioner, who is senior, was not allotted a seat under the in-service quota. Whether the respondents failed to follow the correct seniority list and reservation policy.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that she has 4 years of service and is senior to the 6th respondent, and the allotment was made ignoring her seniority. Respondents contended that the allotment was made as per rules and the petitioner did not meet the criteria.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that administrative actions must be fair and in accordance with law; the seniority list and reservation policy must be correctly applied. The petitioner's seniority should have been considered, and the allotment was quashed for non-compliance.

Judgment Excerpts

The court quashed the allotment list dated 20.10.2023 to the extent it affects the petitioner. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's candidature in accordance with law.