Karnataka High Court
Dr Venkatesha vs Mysore University on 11 July, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
REVIEW PETITION NO 538 OF 2024
C/W
REVIEW PETITION NO 493 OF 2024
IN RP NO. 538/2024
BETWEEN:
1. DR. VENKATESHA
S/O VENKATA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN (RTD)
UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE -570 006.
2. C. MARISWAMY
S/O CHANNAMALLE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN (RTD)
UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE -570 006.
3. NAGASUNDARA
S/O P. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN (RTD)
UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
2
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE -570 006.
4. SMT. JAYASHRI JAGADISH
D/O DEVKUMAR R. HAMIGI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-(RTD)
UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE -570 006.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE
SRI. K. PUTTE GOWDA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MYSORE UNIVERSITY
VISWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
"CRAWFORD HALL"
MYSORE - 570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES)
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 002
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
3
THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
THE CPC READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
REVIEW PETITION THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024
PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.
22487/2018 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.
22487/2018 AS PRAYED FOR.
IN RP NO. 493/2024
BETWEEN:
MYSORE UNIVERSITY
VISWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
"CRAWFORD HALL"
MYSORE - 570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. DR. VENKATESHA
S/O VENKATA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-UGC
MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MSYORE - 570 006.
2. C. MARISWAMY
S/O CHANNAMALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN -UGC
MSYORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
4
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE - 570 06.
3. NAGASUNDARA
S/O P. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN -UGC
MSYORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE - 570 06.
4. SMT. JAYASHRI JAGADISH
D/O DEVKUMAR R. HAMIGI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-UGC
MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
MANASAGANGOTHRI
MYSORE - 57006.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES), VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
6. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 002
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
7. DR D GIDDAIAH
S/O LATE DASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-UGC,
MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY,
MANASAGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE-570006.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
5
FOR SMT. SUVARNA M.L., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. PUTTE GOWDA .,ADVOCATE
SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R5;
SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE
CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024
PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.No. 22487/2018(S-RES)
C/W W.P.No. NO. 22493/2018 (S-RES) WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-A, AND MODIFY THE SAME.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This Court has disposed of the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.22487/2018 and 22493/2018 considering whether it could be justly opined that the writ petitioners are entitled to UGC Pay Scale despite the undisputed fact that they have not qualified in the National Eligibility Test [NET]. The writ petitioners, who 6 are initially appointed as Library Assistants, are promoted as Assistant Librarians and admitted to UGC Pay-scale and Career Advancement. The writ petitioners have filed the writ proceedings calling in question the decision to revert them back as Library Assistants and for recovery.
2. This Court, upon considering Regulation 3.0 of the UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification of Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other measures for Maintenance of Standards, 1998 [UGC Regulations 1998], has opined that the University could exempt those with Ph.D from the requirement of qualification in NET, but in the absence of a specific order, this Court cannot infer that such exemption is granted.
3. This Court has further opined that the writ petitioners are admitted to UGC Pay Scale and Career Advancement Scheme [CAS] though they did not 7 possess the requisite qualification, ultimately opining that the writ petitioners, because they are promoted based on the relevant Statute, are entitled to hold the post of Assistant Librarians but on State Pay Scale admissible to such post with all consequential CAS benefits. The writ petitioners seek review of this order in RP No.538/2024, and the University seeks review in RP No.493/2024 on the consequential direction to the University to fix the State Pay Scale admissible for the post of Assistant Librarians and admit the petitioners to all benefits under permissible CAS.
4. Sri S M Chandrashekar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, canvasses the following to support the writ petitioners' request for review of this Cour's order dated 19.06.2024.
[a] This Court has not considered that Ph.D and NET qualifications are not essential qualifications and if they are not essential 8 qualifications, the writ petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of UGC Pay Scale.
The reliance is on Regulation 3.7.01 of the UGC Regulations, 1998.
[b] This Court must infer exemption as is contemplated under the UGC Regulations, 1998 because the existing CAS benefit as of such Regulations is protected under Regulation 7.1.5 thereof2.
[c] Smt. Pushpa Joseph was initially promoted as an Assistant Librarian on an officiating basis in May 1998, and in January 1999 she is promoted observing 1 The PhD should continue to be a compulsory requirement for the designation of a Reader. However, for other categories, like those of Registrars, Librarians and Physical Education Directors, the PhD should be a desirable and not an essential qualification.
2 The existing scheme of Career Advancement for non-academic staff namely, Assistant Director of Physical Education, Assistant Registrar, Librarian would continue 9 that she is qualified for promotion though she had only post-graduation and did not possess NET eligibility. On 05.09.2009, she is placed as Assistant Librarian [Senior Scale] under UGC Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioners are being treated differently.
5. Sri K S Bheemaiah, the learned Counsel for the University, relies upon the University Statute/s to argue as follows: as per the Statute amended in 1983, neither Ph.D nor NET was an essential qualification for promotion as Assistant Librarians, but the Statute is amended in 1995 stipulating both State NET and Ph.D as essential qualifications. When Smt. Mary Joseph was appointed [as Library Assistant], the Statute as amended in 1983 was in vogue, but the writ petitioners are appointed after the Statute is amended 1985, and as such, the writ petitioners cannot claim parity with 10 her. In rejoinder, Sri S M Chandrashekar underscores that the crucial and relevant statue will be that which was in force as of promotion, and in any event, even when Smt. Mary Joseph was promoted, the UGC Regulations, 1998 was in force.
6. On the request for review by the University, Sri K S Bheemaiah submits that the writ petitioners would be entitled only to Time-bound Pay-scale according to the relevant Regulations and cannot be admitted to CAS under the UGC Guidelines and that this Court's direction to admit the writ petitioners to CAS would be despite holding that the writ petitioners cannot be admitted to UGC Pay Scale. The State and the University have placed on record the Regulations issued permitting Time-bound Pay-scale to the Library Assistants / Assistant Librarians when called upon by this Court.
11
7. In the light of the rival submissions, the question for consideration is:
Whether the writ petitioners and the University have made out a case for a review of this Court's Order dated 19.06.2024.
8. At the outset, this Court must observe that the outcome in the writ petitions is based on the opinion that in the absence of specific orders exempting the requirement of NET qualification, there cannot be an inference of exemption only because the writ petitioners have been admitted to CAS benefits consequent to the grant of UGC Pay Scale or because they have been promoted as Assistant Librarians on selection. The petitioners did not invite this Court's attention to Regulation 7.1.5 of the UGC Regulations, 1998. This Court has not considered that the import of this stipulation in the light of the circumstances peculiar to the case.
12
9. Smt. Mary Joseph and the writ petitioners have admittedly been promoted because the University's Statute permits promotions to the post of Assistant Librarians from amongst the Library Assistants, and for the first time in response to the petitioners' request for the present review based on the promotion and grant of UGC Pay Scale to Smt. Mary Joseph, the University contends that:
[a] she is appointed based on unamended Statute, which did not stipulate NET as an essential qualification, and hence, she is granted UGC Pay Scale with career advancement;
[b] that the writ petitioners are promoted after the Statute is amended and therefore a distinction must be made in their case. Thus, it is now being presented for consideration that the terms of the Statute as of the appointment will be 13 crucial with the writ petitioners asserting that the terms of the Statute will not be relevant with UGC Regulations, 1998 being in force both when Mary Joseph and they are promoted respectively in 1999 and 2004/2009.
10. The import of Regulation 7.1.5 of UGC Regulations, 1998 and the proposition as foresaid will have to be reconsidered to justify the conclusion that the writ petitioners could not have been granted UGC Pay Scale or career advancement under the UGC Scheme. Ultimately, the petitioners will have to repay some part of the amount received by them effective from the date they are granted UGC benefit resulting in financial prejudice to them. The conflation of these factors demonstrates an error apparent that is self- evident and hence, the writ petitioners' review petition [RP No. 538/2024] must be favoured. This Court must refer to the following from the decision of the Apex 14 Court Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in [2013] 8 SCC 320:
"15. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error...."
11. If the writ petitioners' review petition is to be favoured, the University's review petition [RP No. 493/2024] must also be favoured because this Court's opinion that the writ petitioners are only entitled to Time-bound Pay-scale under the State Government's relevant Regulation will be predicated on the outcome of the consideration of the writ petitioners' case. Hence, the following:
ORDER [A] The Review Petitions in RP No. 538/2024 and 493/2024 are allowed recalling this 15 Court's Order dated 19.06.2024 restoring the writ petitions in W.P. No.22487/2018 connected with W.P. No.22493/2018 for due consideration.
[B] The writ petitioners had the advantage of an interim Order during the pendency of the writ petitions, and this interim order is reinstated.
[C] The office is directed to list the aforesaid writ petitions before the regular Bench.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-