Karnataka High Court
A Umesha Babu vs The Managing Director on 3 April, 2019
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.12108/2019(S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
A UMESHA BABU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O T ANANTHASHETTY,
WORKING AS CONTROLLER OF
STORES AND PURCHASES,
KSRTC AND PURCHASES,
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICES,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
3. MEMBER SECRETARY
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
-2-
NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070
4. THE REGISTRAR
VINAYAKA MISSION'S UNIVERSITY,
SANKARI MAIN ROAD (NH-47),
ARIYANOOR, SELAM,
TAMILNADU-636308
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2,
NOTICE TO R3 & R4 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 3/4/19)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO
CONSIDER THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 11.03.2019 AT
ANNEXURE-H AND H1 AND TO DEFER THE PRODUCTION OF THE
DEGREE CERTIFICATE / CONVOCATION CERTIFICATE OF BACHELOR
OF TECHNOLOGY IN AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING TILL THE
APPLICATION DATED 1.03.2019 AT ANNEXURE-G IS CONSIDERED BY
THE R-3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel is requested to take notice for respondents No.1 and 2-Corporation. Notice to respondents No.3 and 4 is dispensed with. -3-
2. The petitioner has joined respondent No.1 - Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation as Assistant Store Officer, Class-II, on 02.07.1984, on the basis of the qualification of Diploma in Automobile. The petitioner was promoted as Store Officer, Class-I, Junior on 01.06.1989. The petitioner, when he was serving as Assistant Store Officer, applied for Open and Distance Learning Mode at University of Technology and Sciences, Raipur, for acquiring the Bachelor's Degree of Technology in Automobile Engineering during the academic session 2004-05. After completion of 5th semester, the petitioner joined respondent No.4-Vinayaka Mission's University, Selam, Tamilnadu and completed the rest of the semesters during the year 2007. A Provisional Degree Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 02.09.2007. Having acquired the Degree of Bachelor of Technology (Automobile Engineering) and the Provisional Degree Certificate, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-Corporation and the Corporation promoted the -4- petitioner as Controller of Stores and Purchases, Class-I, Senior (Selection Grade) on 19.01.2009.
3. On the basis of a complaint made by one Mr.Praveen Kumar M. Hosamani, the respondent-Corporation has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner bringing to his notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468, the Hon'ble Apex Court suspended all the Engineering Degrees issued by the Open Universities, to the students, who were enrolled during the academic year 2001 to 2005. The Hon'ble Apex Court had issued certain directions to the AICTE to conduct tests both written examination as well as practical for the students, who were enrolled during the year 2001 to 2005. It was made clear that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test/tests within time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. Since the petitioner had enrolled during 2004-05, by implication, the -5- degree obtained by the petitioner stood suspended. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to explain why he should not be removed from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, he has not taken the tests as was directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may direct the respondent-Corporation not to initiate action against the petitioner, and enable the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court to seek a direction in this regard. This is because, the time stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elapsed and when tests were conducted by AICTE, the petitioner was not able to take the tests, because he was not aware of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In the light of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent No.1-Corporation to afford some -6- breathing time to the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and seek appropriate direction. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.1-Corporation is directed to hold its hand for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for seeking necessary direction.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, is permitted to file his Memo of Appearance within two weeks from today.
SD/-
JUDGE DL