The Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the state government and the registrar of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) on a petition seeking the immediate formation of a recruitment board for promotions, deputations, transfers and contractual appointments at the university.
A single-judge bench headed by Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Mancheshetty, president of the Rajiv Gandhi University Employees’ Association. The respondents named in the petition include the additional chief secretary of the Medical Education Department and the registrar of RGUHS.
The court has posted the matter for further hearing on the 16th. The notice requires the respondents to respond to the petitioner’s challenge concerning the university’s recruitment process.
According to the petition, a recruitment board previously constituted under Section 51 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, completed its term on May 23, 2025. The petitioner has argued that recruitment procedures should not continue without a functioning board established under the law.
The petition alleges that the university has continued with recruitment despite the expiry of the earlier board’s term. It seeks directions to the state government and the university to constitute a new recruitment board immediately.
The petitioner has also argued that continuing recruitment without the board could disadvantage eligible candidates. The challenge covers multiple categories of personnel decisions at the health sciences university, including promotions, deputations, transfers and contractual appointments.
The court’s order is presently limited to issuing notices to the concerned authorities. The supplied report does not indicate that the court has ruled on the validity of the university’s recruitment activity or accepted the petitioner’s allegations. The responses of the Medical Education Department and the university registrar are expected to be placed before the court as the proceedings continue.
The case places the statutory structure governing appointments at a state health sciences university before the court. Its next hearing on the 16th is expected to determine how the respondents address the petitioner’s claim that recruitment should not proceed until a new board is constituted.
