Karnataka High Court
Sri.Vilas M.Jogul, M.A.Phill vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
W.P.Nos.78215-78217/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.VILAS M.JOGUL, M.A.M.Phil,
S/O MAHANTHAPPA JOGUL,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR BASEL MISSION COMPOUND,
GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT,
GULEDGUDDA-587203.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.P.KANDAGAL, SRI.M.MANJUNATH,
SRI.JOSE SABASTIAN, SRI.Y.R.JOGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DHARWAD-587203.
4. THE CHAIRMAN PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION TRUST(R),
GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
SRI.S.M.BHANDARI ARTS,
W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013
:2:
R.R.BHANDARI COMMERCE AND S.K.RATHI SCIENCE
COLLEGE, GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
6. DR.BALAKULLAYAPPA KU.MADAR,
LECTURER IN GEOGRAPHY,
SRI.S.M.BHANDARI ARTS,
R.R.BHANDARI COMMERCE AND S.K.RATHI SCIENCE
COLLEGE, GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
7. DR.BASAVARAJ SHEKARAPPA CHEWADI,
LECTURER IN HISTORY,
SRI.S.M.BHANDARI ARTS,
R.R.BHANDARI COMMERCE AND S.K.RATHI SCIENCE
COLLEGE, GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
8. DR.IRAPPA JAKKAPPA BELLENNA,
LECTURER IN POLITICAL SCIENCE,
SRI.S.M.BHANDARI ARTS,
R.R.BHANDARI COMMERCE AND S.K.RATHI SCIENCE
COLLEGE, GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
9. DRI.SMT.S.SAROJA GUDADUR,
LECTURER IN EDUCATION,
SRI.S.M.BHANDARI ARTS,
R.R.BHANDARI COMMERCE AND S.K.RATHI SCIENCE
COLLEGE, GULEDGUDDA, BADAMI TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GULEDGUDDA-587203.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANTHONY R.RODRIGUES, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI.S.B.HEBBALLI, ADV. FOR R4 AND R5,
SRI.SURESH S.SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADV.FOR R6 TO R9)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-S
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2; B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED
DIRECTION DATED 11.11.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2; C) ISSUE DIRECTION OR ORDER OR ANY
OTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4
INSTITUTION TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF SELECTION
W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013
:3:
TO THE POST OF LECTURER IN HISTORY IN SO FAR RELATING TO
THE PETITIONER CONCERNED FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH IT
WAS STOPPED, ON THE BASIS OF THE QUALIFICATION
PRESCRIBED AS PER THE UGC REGULATIONS 2006 IN THE
NOTIFICATON INVITING APPLICATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioner that he having been qualified for the necessary eligibility criteria as per the then existing UGC Regulations of the year 2006 applied for the post of Lecturer in History with respondent No.5 institution managed by respondent No.4-Trust responding to their newspaper advertisement at Annexure-F. However, due to the intervening election to Lok Sabha, the selection process could not be completed. In the meantime, UGC Regulations 2006 was substituted by UGC Regulations 2009 with effect from 11.07.2009. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 continued the selection process adopting the UGC Regulations 2009 and appointed respondent No.6 to 9 in various subjects in their institution. Respondent No.7 was appointed as lecturer in W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :4: History, for which post, the present petitioner was an aspirant.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as on the date he applying for the post, it was the UGC Regulations 2006 that was applicable. As such, the entire appointment process ought to have been continued and completed applying the UGC Regulations 2006 under which, he was eligible to the post. With the said contention, the petitioner has sought for quashing of Annexure-S, which is an order of the Government approving the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 9 by respondent Nos.4 and 5. He has also sought for quashing of the direction said to have been issued by the Department of Collegiate Education, Government of Karnataka dated 11.11.2009 at Annexure-J, which says that any appointment subsequent to 11.07.2009 for the post of lecturer in aided colleges has to be made according to the UGC Regulations 2009.
W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :5:
3. I have heard the arguments from both sides.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by him in his memorandum of writ petitions and submitted that, in a similar circumstance, this Court earlier in W.P.Nos.61122- 26/2010 (S-RES) dated 09.08.2010 was pleased to hold that appointment has to be undertaken and continued as per the old UGC Regulations 2006.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in his argument submitted that, admittedly the present petitioner has challenged second advertisement for the same post published by respondent No.4 in the newspaper advertisement at Annexure-K in W.P.Nos.61464-61465/2010. As per Annexure-L, the said writ petitions came to be dismissed by the order of this Court dated 11.04.2011 observing that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and he cannot jump to the High Court by filing writ W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :6: petitions. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the competent authority. As such, the finding of dismissal given by this Court in W.P.Nos.61464-61465/2010 has reached its finality. Since the said Annexure-K has resulted by virtue of Annexure-J and that challenge to Annexure-J has reached its finality and remained undisturbed, the petitioner now cannot go back to the previous advertisement which has lost its existence by issuance of second advertisement and cannot rake up the issue.
It is also the further argument of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 that, first prayer made in the writ petitions is only with respect to quashing of Annexure-S, which is an order of approval of the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 9 issued by respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka. Even if the said approval of appointment is quashed, still the selection and appointment made by respondent No.4- Management appointing respondent Nos.6 to 9 remains W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :7: undisturbed. As such also, none of the prayer made by the petitioner in his writ petitions would survive or requires any consideration.
6. According to the first advertisement at Annexure-F, the eligibility for the post of lecturer in the institution at respondent No.5 managed by respondent No.4 was a Post Graduation with a minimum scoring of 55% marks and completion of NET/SLET. However, a candidate having M.Phil was exempted from passing NET/SLET. According to the petitioner, he was M.Phil graduate, as such, he completing NET/SLET was not mandatory. In response to the said advertisement, he had applied to the post of History lecturer in respondent No.5- college. Undisputedly, the selection process could not be completed due to intervening Lok Sabha election. It is thereafter, the management proceeded to complete the selection process. However, in the meantime, due to substitution of UGC Regulations 2006 with new UGC Regulations 2009, the notification at Annexure-J was W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :8: issued by the Office of the Commissioner, Department of Collegiate Education, Government of Karnataka stating that, all the appointments subsequent to 11.07.2009 have to be strictly in accordance with new UGC Regulations. It is not in dispute that subsequent to that direction of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, respondent No.4- Management issued a fresh paper advertisement as per Annexure-K inviting applications afresh for the same post of lecturer in different departments including History. The said advertisement made it mandatory that the candidate applying for the post of lecturer apart from holding a Post Graduation with minimum 55% marks should also complete NET/SLET. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was M.Phil Degree holder, but had not completed NET or SLET. He did not apply in response to the advertisement at Annexure-K. On the contrary, he challenged the very issuance of Annexure-K before this Court in W.P.Nos.61464-61465/2010, as could be seen at Annexure-L. The contention taken up by him in the said W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 :9: writ petitions was exactly the same what he has taken in the present writ petitions that in his case, it is UGC Regulations, 2006 that is applicable, but not UGC Regulations, 2009. This Court after hearing the matter, at paragraph No.3 of the order, observed as below:
"It is open to the petitioners also to make use of the advertisement and if the notification is only to ensure that selection process in the respondent-institution is in consonance with the guidelines and criteria fixed by the UGC, no exception can be taken nor can the applicants claim any vested rights in such matters, particularly, when the correction is for ensuring that the persons who are applying to the post of have necessary requisite qualification in terms of the guidelines or stipulations as have been issued by the UGC".
7. Apart from making the above observation, it is further observed that the appointment being in a private aided institution, that cannot be the subject matter for writ petitions and such persons to avail of the remedies under the Karnataka Education Act,1983 and not to jump W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 : 10 : to the High Court by filing writ petitions. Thus, the petitioner was shown that he has an alternate remedy, which he is required to avail under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. There is a provision to prefer appeal under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Admittedly, the present petitioner neither challenged the order passed in W.P.Nos.61464-61465/2010 in the form of writ appeal nor preferred any appeal before the appropriate authority under Section 130 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Thus, the petitioner has admitted the order passed by this Court in the said W.P.Nos.61464- 61465/2010. As such, Annexure-K, the second paper advertisement for recruitment for the post of lecturer issued by respondent No.4 continued unabatedly, it thereafter continuing the process and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have appointed respondent Nos.6 to 9 in various departments and whose appointments have been approved by the Government of Karnataka as per the order at Annexure-S. W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 : 11 :
8. In view of these developments, if at all the petitioner was serious in challenging Annexure-J, out of which Annexure-K has emerged, he should have either preferred a writ appeal challenging the order at Annexure-L or as per the order at Annexure-L would have availed alternate remedy available to him under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Without doing either of these acts and admitting the order at Annexure-L, he now cannot go back and challenge Annexure-J. So also he cannot challenge the appointment of respondent Nos.6 to 9 whose appointments have been made by virtue of second advertisement at Annexure-K. These factual aspects varies from the facts in W.P.Nos.61122-26/2010 wherein the order dated 09.08.2010 was passed holding that old UGC Regulations norms, i.e., UGC Regulations 2006 applies.
9. Therefore, I do not find any ground in the contention of the petitioner that the appointment made by respondent Nos.4 and 5, which is approved by the State W.P Nos.78215-78217/2013 : 12 : Government under Annexure-S deserves to be quashed or quashing of the impugned direction of the Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Government of Karnataka, which is at Annexure-J. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-