Karnataka High Court
Maheshkumar S/O.Shivaputrappa Bannur vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2017
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
WRIT PETITION Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHESHKUMAR
S/O SHIVAPUTRAPPA BANNUR
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER IN VISHWANATH RAO
DESHPANDE, RURAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, HALIYAL,
R/O SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD.
2. SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O MARIYAPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE:35 YEARS,
OCC:LECTURER IN PHYSICS,
CHETAN PU SCIENCE COLLEGE,
DEVAPPANAVAR VIDYA SANGH
EDUCATION ACADEMY, SHIRUR PARK,
HUBLI, R/O CHARANTIMATH GARDEN,
BEHIND JOSHI GALLI, DHARWAD.
3. UDAYA S/O CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:LECTURER,
KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE, DHARWAD,
R/O CHAITANYA NAGAR, DHARWAD.
Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in
WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES)
Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others
Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others
2
4. MANOHAR S/O RAMACHANDRA HOSAMANI
AGE:35 YEARS,
KLE PU COLLEGE, RAYBAG
DIST: BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UMESH C AINAPUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARIAT,
MS BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRE-UNIVEERSITY
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
MALLESWARAM, 18TH CROSS,
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. KUMAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI VIDE
ANNEXURE-M TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED
29.10.2011 AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE GOVERNMENT TO
CONSIDER M.SC. EELCTRONICS AS A QUALIFICATION
TO TEACH PHYSICS TO THE STUDENTS OF PU LEVEL.
Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in
WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES)
Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others
Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others
3
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Mr.Umesh C Ainapur, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. M. Kumar, AGA for the respondents.
1. These four petitioners namely Sri. Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur, Sanjeev Kumar S/o Mariyappa Kattimani, Udaya S/o Channabasayya Hiremath and Manohar S/o Ramachanra Hosamani, have filed these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned Notification No. ED 60 TPU 2010, Bangalore, dated 16.09.2011 issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Education Department(P.U)., promulgating the Karnataka General Service(Pre-University Education Department) (Recruitment to the cadre of Lecturers of Government Pre-University Colleges) (Special) Rules, 2011, for prescribing the qualifications for appointment as Lecturers in the Colleges. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES) Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 4 prescription of the qualification of Masters Degree for the posts of Lecturers in Physics.
2. The petitioners have submitted before the Court that they are holding the Degree of M.Sc.(Electronics), but not M.Sc.(Physics). The petitioners have also studied the subject of Physics in their M.Sc.(Electronics). The Karnataka University vide its Notification at Annexure-C, dated 30.06.2008, had clarified that the petitioner No.1-Maheshkumar S. Bannur was eligible only to teach Physics at Pre-University course level, provided he has studied Physics as one of the optional subjects at B.Sc. level. However, under the said Notification, it is further clarified that the petitioners are not eligible to teach Physics at (B.Sc.) Under Graduate level.
3. The petitioners claimed that prior to this Amendment vide Annexure-M, dated 29.10.2011, the Degree holders of M.Sc.(Electronics) were also eligible to teach the subject of Physics to the PU level students to, but now, with Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES) Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 5 this Notification vide Annexure-M on 29.10.2011, they would not be so entitled to teach the students at PU level Course. Thus, this amendment is ultra-vires and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, Sri. M. Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents State submitted that it is a matter of State Policy and the petitioners cannot insist upon a particular qualification like M.Sc.(Electronics) to be continued to be eligibility for teaching Physics subject at PU level, as was the position prior Notification dated 29.10.2011. He pointed out the Item No.20 of the Schedule to the said Notification, which provides the eligibility of Lecturers in Electronics subject, separately provides for Master Degree in Electronics Science or Physics or Physics with Electronic Specialization or M.Tech/ME Electronics and Communication, Electrical and Electronics. Therefore, he submitted that with the development and specialization, the State is free to prescribe even a Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES) Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 6 restrictive qualification for selecting the Lecturers to teach the Students at PU level course viz. that a candidate must possess the Masters Degree in Physics only. Thus, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners cannot insist upon a particular qualification to be continued to be eligible to teach the students for Physics subject as well as Electronics.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that it is not for the Court to determine under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the eligibility criteria and nature of the qualification to prescribe for making selection of the lecturers at PU level or otherwise. This Court does not find any good ground to hold that such a bifurcation of the qualifications restricting the Master Degree holders in Physics subject only to be eligible to apply for the post of Lecturers to teach PU level subject of Physics and to exclude the Master Degree holders of Electronics as their subject, who Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES) Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 7 have also studied Physics in their B.Sc. level. Document letter dated 30.06.2008 at Annexure-C relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners issued by the Karnataka University, Dharwad, is of little help to the petitioners and even in that communication, the separate clasisifation communicated by the Karnataka University, when the Registrars of the said University has observed that M.Sc.(Electronics) persons are not eligible to teach the students at Under Graduate level or at B.Sc. level. Naturally, the level of students at PU level, Under Graduate or B.Sc. would be different and if the State in its wisdom, supported by the experts' opinion have, chosen to prescribe the qualification of M.Sc.(Physics) for Lecturers to teach the physics students at PU level. No valid exception to the same can be taken. It is not that the opportunity for the persons like the petitioners, who hold M.Sc.(Electronics) degree has been completely ruled out. The Lecturers to teach the subject of Electronics (Item No.20 of the same Notification), separate qualifications of Electronics have been Date of Order: 17.03.2017 in WP Nos.48538-541/2011(S-RES) Maheshkumar S/o Shivaputrappa Bannur & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others 8 prescribed by the respondents-State. Of course, it will depend upon the number of vacancies in the different subjects arising on different occasions, but the petitioners cannot claim like that in the past they were eligible to teach PU level students, should also continue to teach for all times to come. The State can change the criteria at a given point of time, like in the present as has been done, vide Annexure-M dated 29.10.2011.
6. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in the force of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the aforesaid petitioners are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR