Facts
The petitioner, a Resident Medical Officer (RMO) at Cheluvamba Hospital, challenged the State’s order dated 4 September 2026 posting respondent No. 6 to that position.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 1–9The petitioner had been posted as RMO by MMCRI’s order dated 20 June 2026 and contended that the State’s Health and Family Welfare Department lacked authority over the post, which he said fell within MMCRI and the Department of Medical Education.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 1–9The State maintained that the RMO post was an administrative post filled on deputation by the Health and Family Welfare Department, while MMCRI’s posting of the petitioner was only a temporary arrangement.
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 1–9MMCRI also stated that the petitioner would continue in his substantive post as Casualty Medical Officer (CMO).
Source reference: pp. 3–6, paras. 1–9Issues
1. Whether the State’s order posting respondent No. 6 as RMO at Cheluvamba Hospital was without jurisdiction
Source reference: pp. 4–6, paras. 4–7, 102. Whether the petitioner had a right to remain in the RMO post on the basis of MMCRI’s posting order or because the RMO post was promotional to the CMO post
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 9–11Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Source reference: p. 3The Court did not cite any statutory provision or precedent governing the allocation of authority over the RMO post, nor did it decide the broader overlap of jurisdiction between the Health and Family Welfare Department and the Department of Medical Education.
Source reference: no citationIt proceeded on the State’s stated position that the RMO post was an administrative post to be filled by deputation through the Health and Family Welfare Department, and that MMCRI could make only a temporary arrangement
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 6–10The Court also held that the RMO post was not a promotional post to which a CMO was entitled as of right
Source reference: p. 7, para. 11Reasoning
The Court declined to adjudicate the inter-departmental jurisdictional dispute in a transfer petition brought by an employee.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 10–11It relied on the State’s memo, supported by the Additional Advocate General’s submissions, asserting that the State had jurisdiction to issue the impugned order.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 10–11MMCRI’s position that the petitioner’s RMO posting was temporary, and that he would retain his substantive CMO post, further weighed against the petitioner’s claim to the RMO position.
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 10–11The Court rejected the contention that appointment as RMO was a promotion from CMO, reasoning that the petitioner could not claim the post as a matter of right
Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 10–11Holding
The Court held that the impugned order was not shown to warrant interference
disposed of the petition, declining to set aside the State’s order dated 4 September 2026
Source reference: p. 7, para. 11Original Court PDF
DR SAIKUMAR VvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
