KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES v. SMT. SUNANDA M
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Since the appeal itself is disposed of, the question of considering I.A.3/2025 for condonation of delay and I.As.1/2025 and 2/2025 for dispensation and stay, respectively, would not arise. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE CT-CMU
Judgment
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
#1. SMT. SUNANDA M. D/O. MARIYAPPA, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE / NURSING OFFICER, KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15488-DB WA No. 100674 of 2025 HC-KAR
#2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, (MEDICAL EDUCATION), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN W.P.NO.102486/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE ANY OTHER INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S AS DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN AID OF THE MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15488-DB WA No. 100674 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT) This writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge, is directed against the order dated 04.07.2025 in Writ Petition No.102486/2025 wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and passed the following order: “i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 23.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-H stands quashed. iii. The case of the petitioner shall now merit reconsideration at the hands of the respondents bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the aforesaid order within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.”
#2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni for the appellant and the learned Prl.GA Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for respondent No.2.
#3. Respondent No.1 was working as a staff nurse on contractual basis in the appellant Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences. The other similarly situated staff nurses had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.106939/2024 and by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15488-DB WA No. 100674 of 2025 HC-KAR order dated 21.02.2025 the said writ petition was allowed against which Writ Appeal No.100642/2025 was filed which was dismissed by this Court on 15.10.2025.
#4. The question raised herein by the appellant is identical to the question raised and decided in Writ Appeal No.100642/2025. The said decision would apply to the facts of the present case.
#5. Following the decision dated 15.10.2025 in Writ Appeal No.100642/2025, the present Writ Appeal also stands disposed of.
#6. Learned counsel Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni submits that against the order dated 15.10.2025 in Writ Appeal No.100642/2025, SLP (Diary) No.62539/2025 is filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he prays for adjourning the matter.
#7. We reject the said request and observe that whatever the order that would be passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said SLP would apply to the present case also. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15488-DB WA No. 100674 of 2025 HC-KAR
#8. Since the appeal itself is disposed of, the question of considering I.A.3/2025 for condonation of delay and I.As.1/2025 and 2/2025 for dispensation and stay, respectively, would not arise. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE CT-CMU
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.