Value Addition Is Always Advantageous: Karnataka HC Upholds Doctor’s Claim For Educational Deputation

The State and Its Officials had approached the High Court assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s order whereby a direction was issued to the first petitioner-State to consider the employee’s representation for permission to go on deputation for higher studies, in the light of recommendation. The Tribunal had prescribed two weeks to accomplish the mandate.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice C M Joshi asserted, “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.”

Additional Government Advocate Saritha Kulkarni represented the Petitioners while Advocate Shantharaju represented the Respondent.

The first respondent has been working as a ‘specialist physician’ w.e.f. July 20, 2018 and had applied through the proper channel for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Super Speciality-2023 conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences. He successfully cleared the test and was allotted a seat in DNBSS Cardiology programme which is a three-year Super Speciality course in Medical Science, at Apollo BGS Hospital, Mysore.

The second petitioner i.e., the Commissioner for Health and Family Welfare Services, submitted a proposal to the government to consider his representation for sanction of study leave so that the employee would complete the course and come back after making value addition. He cited the need for undergoing the course since there was a dearth of doctors in the department with Super Speciality degrees. The said representation having not been considered despite the recommendation, the employee moved the Tribunal which granted him relief. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed the Petition.

For the petitioners, the AGA submitted that deputation of any kind in general and deputation for educational purpose in particular cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It was argued that a civil servant cannot say that even during deputation, he should be paid the salary, though he does not work during the said period. It was the petitioner’s case that deputation for educational purpose is permissible only if there is an equivalent post in which ‘additionally educated/qualified’ civil servant can be accommodated and 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.

Referring to the Rules, the Bench observed that there is some discretion lying with the Government in matters of value addition deputation. Referring to the judgment in Susannah Sharp V. Wakefield (Lord Halsbury in 1891 A.C. 173), the Bench opined that as any discretion, this too has to be exercised according to rules of reason & justice. 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 was obviously competitive and therefore, the Tribunal had rightly interfered.

“The vehement submission of learned AGA 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, is liable to be rejected inasmuch as, the Government servant concerned has to execute a bond in Form No.19”, it added.

Considering that the counsel for the respondent – employee undertook that his client shall report back to duty immediately after making value addition and shall serve in the Department for ten years, the Bench held that this should alleviate the apprehension vehemently expressed by the AGA that public money would be drained, by sending the employees on educational deputation.

“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”, it said.

Noting that Article 42 enacts a Directive Principle injuncting the State to provide just & humane conditions of work/service, having borrowed the idea from the Irish Constitution, the bench observed that the petitioners were not justified in keeping the employee’s claim for educational deputation, especially when admission to 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”, it further emphasized.

The Bench also discarded the contention of the AGA that no employee can claim deputation of the kind in the absence of a suitable equivalent post available for accommodating him after value addition.

“Admittedly, it is the Department of Health & Family Welfare; the respondent-employee is a medical doctor; the higher educational course which he aspires to get admission to 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”, it held.

Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench said, “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.”

Cause Title: State Of Karnataka & Anr. v. Dr. Madhu Kumar M H (Neutral Citation: NC: 2024:KHC:48761-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Additional Government Advocate Saritha Kulkarni

Respondents: Advocate Shantharaju

Click here to read/download Order