He moved the high court against the proceedings

The case involves 92-year-old MM Anandram and his 64-year-old son MA Prem Kumar

Karnataka high court

He executed a bond on his deputation from BMCRI and joined KMIO on Aug 31, 2015. He completed the three-year course in 2018 and was relieved from deputation on Aug 8, 2018. He waited for three years and quit in Aug 2021. On April 11, 2022, BMCRI refused to accept his resignation and directed Dr Saeed to report to duty. Despite his detailed explanation, a domestic inquiry was ordered against him in Oct 2022 over unauthorised absence. On April 5, 2023, a single bench quashed notices and directed the chief secretary to pay salary to him for the period for which no posting was given.

You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Bengaluru | Silver Rate in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Petrol Price in Bengaluru | Diesel Price in Bengaluru | CNG Price in Bengaluru | LPG Price in Bengaluru Stay updated with the latest Bengaluru news. Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has observed that a qualified super-specialty doctor is not expected to remain idle when govt doesn’t provide any posting in spite of requests, adding that it’s an unacceptable proposition that a doctor doing a super-specialty course must remain indebted to the govt for the rest of his official life. A bench comprising Justices Anu Sivaraman and Venkatesh Naik T made the observation, disposing of appeals filed by Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute and medical education department. Consequently, the civil-contempt petition filed by cancer specialist Dr Adnan Saeed was disposed of. Dr Saeed secured a seat in Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology (KMIO) to pursue Masters in surgical oncology under the in-service quota. He sought a posting at KMIO since there were no surgical oncology positions at BMCRI. He moved the high court against the proceedings. BMCRI and medical education dept contended Dr Saeed failed to honour the bond and chose to work abroad. The division bench noted, “In the absence of posting orders, appellants cannot raise contentions (of him going abroad) in these proceedings. Download the TOI App.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *