Karnataka High Court
Dr Pramila C K vs University Of Agricultural Sciences on 19 November, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION No.936/2012 (S-RES) R
BETWEEN :
DR PRAMILA C K,
W/O RAMACHNDRA R,
C/O G.V. PARTHASARATHY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, BALAJI NILAYA,
OPPOSITE TO NETHRAVATHI BAR,
THINDLU MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 097. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV.)
AND :
1 UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G K V K BANGALORE-560 065,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR
RECRUITMENT OF THE POST OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GKVK, BANGALORE-560 065.
3 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
2
G K V K,
BANGALORE-560 065.
4 SMT NETHRA N,
D/O SRI NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESERCH ASSOCIATE,
NATIONAL SEED PROJECT,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTRURAL SCIENCES,
G K V K, BANGALORE-560 065,
R/AT NO.576, 10TH D CROSS,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE,
MAHALAKSHMPURAM,
BANGALORE 560 086.
5 THE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAJ BHAVAN
BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B RAMESH, ADV A/W SRI. MADUSUDHAN R NAIK, SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR R-4;
SRI. R. SRIDHAR HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIN TO QUASH THE
SELECTION LIST DT.15.10.11, ISSUED BY THE R3, VIDE ANN-D, IN SO
FAR IT RELATES TO THE SELECTION OF THE R4 AS ASST.
PROFESSOR AS ARBITRARY & VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA & CONTRARY TO THE CRITERIA
EVOLVED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This Writ Petition is directed against the selection list issued by respondent No.3 dated 15.10.2011 produced at Annexure-D selecting fourth respondent as Assistant Professor of Seed Science and Technology.
2. Brief facts leading to this case are that:
Respondent No.1 - University issued a notification dated 14.03.2011 inviting the application to the post of Assistant Professor in respect of Seed Science and Technology and other subjects. Amongst two posts sought to be filled up, one was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and another was reserved for General Merit (Women). Petitioner and the respondent No.4 both of them had applied to the said post of Assistant Professor, Seed Science and Technology under General Merit (Women) category. The University on consideration of the applications and on assessment of the merits of both the candidates, selected fourth respondent to the said post. As against the said selection, the petitioner is before 4 this Court.
3. Sri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his argument insofar as not awarding the requisite marks for acquiring higher qualification, not awarding marks for the Gold Medal secured by the petitioner, not awarding complete marks for the participation of the petitioner in Sports Event at National and University Level. To support his argument, he relied on the explanatory notes for award of marks. At Clause 1(e), in case of Higher Academic Training in a recognized academic/scientific professional institutions in relevant field for 21 days, the candidate would be awarded 5 marks. He relied on the certificate issued to the petitioner having undergone training for 17 days. He further relied on Clause (2) of the Explanatory Notes and pointed out that, the petitioner had secured Gold Medal. In her application, column relating to Gold Medal, petitioner has mentioned that she has enclosed the merit certificate. The merit certificate discloses that, the petitioner stood first in her batch of students with overall grade 5 point average of 9.26 out of 10. Statute 26.1 relating to award of Gold Medal states that the grant of award of Gold Medal in each subject to a student securing highest overall grade point average with not less than 9 point. Petitioner having obtained 9.26 and being first in her batch, though at the time of filing of application, actual certificate of Gold Medal was not produced, but the certificate of merit read with Statute 26.1 of the University Statute makes it clear that, she had secured Gold Medal in terms of Clause 26.1 of the Statute. If this had been accepted, petitioner would have got three marks in terms of Clause 2 relating to Gold Medal.
4. Nextly, he contended that, for Sports and cultural activities, marks are prescribed. Petitioner had represented in six events and out of six events, three were National and three were University Level. If these certificates had been considered, petitioner would have been entitled for additional 1.5 marks, as she has been awarded only 2.5 marks. However, selection committee having not awarded, the requisite marks for which there could not 6 have been any debate, petitioner has not been selected.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Madhusudhan R.Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 submitted that, a notification calling for application to the post in question stipulates condition that, the eligibility as well as suitability of a candidate shall be considered based on the information supplied by the applicant, any additional document, certificate, record given after the last date of submission of filled in application will not be considered for award of marks. As far as Gold Medal is concerned, even according to Clause 26.1 of the Statute, the merit certificate and the Gold Medal certificate are two different things. The Gold Medal certificate is awarded only at the time of Convocation and it is a separate certificate. Merit certificate cannot be treated as a Gold Medal. Even reading of merit certificate does not show that the candidate had secured Gold Medal. What is required is a certificate of Gold Medal and not a certificate of merit. Even merit certificate does not show that, in the subject, petitioner has stood 7 first. He also submitted that, as far as the petitioner representing in the Cultural activities, she has represented the University level and not at the National Level. Even the certificate produced by the petitioner namely, issued by the Karnataka Sangha and the Certificate issued by the Director of Instructions are one and the same and relate to same event.
6. The Expert Committee on the basis of certificate produced has assessed the same and has awarded 2.5 marks. The other certificates produced by the petitioner, they do not relate to representation at the State level or any event at National Level, it is only an inter-University contest. Such events are treated as University Level events and accordingly marks are awarded.
7. To support his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2011 Kar 2200 in the matter of Dr.H.S.Prakash and Another -vs- State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare 8 Department and Others and submitted that, this Court relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 168 in the matter of Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) -vs- University of Rajasthan and others held that, once the last date is fixed for filing of application, there is no scope for accepting any document or award either at the time of selection or thereafter. Hence, the petitioner having not produced Gold Medal certificate at the time of filing of the application, any additional document or certificate produced thereafter cannot be looked into and this is only to avoid uncertainty in the matter of selection.
8. Sri. Sridhar Hiremath, learned Counsel appearing for the University submitted that, taking into consideration the number of certificates on the basis of event and year, for any cultural activities, 2.5 marks have been awarded to the petitioner. As far as Gold Medal is concerned, since it was not produced, no marks are awarded. As far as Academic Training is concerned, it is the experts, who have assessed the Academic Training, as such, these 9 are not the matters, in which the Court can interfere. He submitted that, the selection was in consonance with the notification.
9. On three grounds, the petitioner has called in question the selection of respondent No.4. One is that, the petitioner had secured Gold Medal and three marks which are meant for Gold Medal have not been awarded. It is not in dispute that, the Explanatory Notes for awarding marks, it provides for awarding three marks for University Gold Medal. However, at the time of filing of the application, the petitioner in the column relating to University Gold Medal, it is mentioned "Merit Certificate enclosed". The application is admittedly not accompanied with any certificate of Gold Medal issued by the University. Now reliance is placed on Statute 26.1 of the University Statute, which reads as under:
"26.1 A Gold Medal for each major subject at Master's and Ph.D. Level shall be awarded to the students securing the highest Overall Grade Point Average with not less than 9.00 in the concerned Postgraduate degree together with a certificate of 10 merit. Two or more students getting the same OGPA will be awarded a Medal and a Certificate of Merit each. The Gold Medal and a Certificate of Merit shall be awarded at the time of Convocation. The value of each Gold Medal for each candidate will be the same."
Statute itself makes it clear that, the Gold Medal would be awarded in each of the major subjects to a student securing highest Overall Grade Point Average of not less than 9.00 in the Postgraduate degree together with certificate of merit. It is clear from the Clause 26.1 that, apart from awarding certificate of merit, candidate will be awarded certificate of Gold Medal. As far as Gold Medal is concerned, it is awarded at the time of convocation. Now petitioner has not disputed that, the certificate of Gold Medal was not issued when application was filled. It is also not in dispute that, the said certificate was not enclosed along with the application, however, to treat the certificate of merit itself as a Gold Medal, neither Statute nor the Explanatory Notes on award of marks provide for it. Even Statute requires that the Gold Medal 11 Certificate and Merit Certificate are two different things and awarded independently. May be the Merit Certificate may show that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate. Even the Merit Certificate produced by the petitioner only states that, she stood first in the batch of students with Overall Grade Point Average of 9.26 out of 10, it does not show that she stood first in the subject. The certificate or document required to be produced by the applicants have to be produced only at the time of filing of the application, that too before the last date.
10. Law on this point is very clear, as the Apex Court in the decision of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) itself has observed thus:
"The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariable uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidate who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the 12 qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the post. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants are reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the Advertisement/Notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications."
11. Thus, from the judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that, the last date is relevant date before which the candidate has to produce all the relevant documents. Merely because the petitioner 13 has secured highest marks for which she was awarded Gold Medal, at later stage after the last date of filing of the application, the same cannot be considered as acquiring Gold Medal for awarding marks in anticipation of securing Gold Medal.
12. As far as Sports of the Cultural activities are concerned, it is not in dispute that, 2.5 marks as against maximum 4.00 marks has been awarded to the petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had participated in four University Level and three National Level Events, but the marks awarded on the basis of event and year. Petitioner had participated in all six events and all these events, they relate to University level and not the National level and in respect of one item, it is repetition of the same and as such, if the University level participation is made, the marks obtained by the petitioner shows that she has obtained 2.5 marks and the average marks to be awarded is (point) .5 marks per event per year.
14
13. In my opinion, the experts, who adjudged these certificates, have taken note of the same and have awarded the marks.
14. Having regard to these circumstances, I find that the experts in the field have assessed the merits of the candidates and have made the selection. It is not the case of the petitioner that, the Committee constituted was biased or there is any malafide exercise of power. Normally in the matter of selection to the post of Professor is concerned, qualification being academic matters where the Selection Committee comprises of experts in relevant subject, they assess the academic performance of the candidates. As such, the courts having no expertee in the academic matter, cannot sit in appeal over the expert opinion.
15. In these circumstances, I find that the selection of respondent No.4 has been made on proper assessment of merit, and I find no ground to interfere with the same.
15
Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and same dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the other applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/DP