Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17-7-2006 in Writ Petition No. 8300 of 2006 (S-PRO) (Pundalika Savanna Kaladagi v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2006 (5) AIR Kar. R. 365). The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it is not maintainable as the petitioner should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute raised in the writ petition.
2. The appellant is a member of the Medical Education Service of the Government of Karnataka. He was appointed as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation. While the appellant was working as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation, the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences invited applications from eligible candidates for the post of Director of the Institute as per notification dated 19-3-2005. In response to the said notification, the appellant submitted application. He was called for interview along with other applicants. He was selected and appointed as Director as per Annexure-B, order dated 13-5-2005. Annexure-B, order dated 13-5-2005 shows that the appellant was appointed as Director of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, on deputation for a period of two years under Rule XVII(2) of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, Rules and Regulations, 1995. On the strength of Annexure-B, order, the appellant took charge as Director. However, by Annexure-A, order dated 21-6-2006, the appellant's deputation to the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, was withdrawn and he was appointed as Professor (Orthopaedics) in the Mysore Medical College. Challenging Annexure-A, order dated 21-6-2006, the appellant filed the writ petition. Upholding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner has a remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and therefore, he should approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes relating to the writ petition. On that basis the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge without going into any other contention raised in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the relevant files made available to the Court by the learned Government Advocate, Sri Venugopala Gowda.
4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is a Government employee who has a remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against Annexure-A, order and who is not entitled to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the remedy under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The contention of the appellant is that the appointment of Director of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, can be only on a regular basis and not by deputation and hence the appellant should be treated as a regular employee of Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli and not of the Government and therefore, he is entitled to challenge Annexure-A, order in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that if the appellant is treated as on deputation to the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, then the remedy available to him is only under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
5. The appointment of Director of Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli is governed by Rule XVII of the Rules and Regulations of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli. Rule 17 reads thus:
XVII. Appointment of Director.-
(1) The first Director shall be appointed by the Government, and such appointment shall be for a period of 5 years or till the incumbent attains 60 years whichever is earlier.
(2) The appointment of subsequent Directors consequent on superannuation, resignation, removal or death or cessation of the term of appointment of Director, can be made temporarily by the Governing Council till the Director is appointed by the Government of Karnataka.
Annexure-B, order shows that the appellant was appointed under Clause (2) of Rule XVII. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no provision for appointing the Director by deputation. According to the learned Counsel, Clause (2) of Rule XVII does not speak of appointment by deputation and hence appointment by deputation is not permitted. But it has to be noted that Clause (2) of Rule XVII does not mention any particular method of appointment. It only indicates that while temporary appointment can be made by the Government Council, regular appointment shall be made by the Government of Karnataka. On the other hand, Clause 14 of the Bye-laws of the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, the posts of Director, Principal, Professors, Assistant Professors and Lecturers and all other posts may be filled up by promotion or open advertisement or deputation from the State Government as deemed fit by the Appointing Authority. Hence, it cannot be said that the post of Director cannot be filled up by deputation. Clause 14 of the Bye-laws specifically enables appointment on deputation from the State Government. Prior to his appointment as Director, the appellant himself was appointed on deputation as Professor (Orthopaedics). In Annexure-B, order also it was stated that he was appointed on deputation as Director for a period of two years. Hence, we reject the contention that there cannot be any appointment by deputation to the post of Director in the Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even assuming that appointment on deputation from the State Government is permissible under Clause 14, the proceedings for appointment in question were initiated for appointment through open advertisement and not by deputation. Learned Counsel invited our attention to Annexure-I notification dated 19-3-2005 inviting applications from eligible candidates. The learned Counsel is correct in stating that the institute invited applications from eligible candidates for making appointment through open advertisement. Learned Counsel is also right in stating that, if the appointment was to made by deputation, there was no need for inviting application through open advertisement. However, the question is whether the appointing authority i.e., the Government is competent to make the appointment by deputation for any reason, even after initiating the proceedings for appointment through open advertisement. In our view, the provisions in the Rules and Regulations or the Bye-laws of the institute do not restrict or curtail the power of the Government to appoint the Director on deputation after taking steps for appointment through open advertisement. From the records it is seen that the Selection Committee, having considered the respective merits of all the candidates, recommended the appointment of the appellant as Director on deputation for a tenure of only two years. Based on the above recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Government issued Annexure-B order appointing the appellant on deputation for a period of two years. The appellant accepted the appointment without demur and took charge of the post. Only when the Government withdrew him from deputation through Annexure-A, order the appellant is aggrieved by the appointment on deputation. Having accepted Annexure-A, order and the appointment on deputation and having discharged the duties of Director for a period of more than one year, it is not open to the appellant to turn round and question the appointment on deputation. It is seen that the writ petition was amended to include the following prayer:
(v) Quash the Annexure-B to the extent of declaring that the post of Director in Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences on deputation and fixation of period of 2 years under Annexure-B, dated 13-5-2005.
Though the prayer as such is meaningless, the intention of the petitioner in including the above prayer was obviously to question the nature of the appointment and the tenure of two years. We are clearly of the view that at this distance of time, the appellant cannot be allowed to challenge Annexure-B, order appointing him on deputation for a period of two years. Having accepted the appointment with open eyes, the appellant is bound by the terms of the appointment order, Annexure-B. It is significant that the Selection Committee had not recommended the direct recruitment of the petitioner for the full period of five years and that their recommendation was to appoint him only on deputation for a period of two years. It is also to be noted that on withdrawal of his deputation, the appellant has been posted as Professor (Orthopaedics) in a Government Medical College i.e., Mysore Medical College. Thus, the consequence of Annexure-A, order is that the petitioner's deputation was prematurely terminated and he has been reverted to his parent service i.e., the Medical Education Service.
7. In the above circumstance, we hold that the learned Single Judge was right in taking the view that the writ petitioner's remedy against Annexure-A, order was to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and that the petitioner was not entitled to file the writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the above mentioned remedy. Hence, there is no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed.