Karnataka High Court
Dr. Sangeeta Baliram Gaikwad vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 29 August, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.NO.101700/2013 (GM-RES)
Between:
Dr. Sangeeta Baliram Gaikwad
Age: 34 years, Occ: Lecturer
R/o: C/o. Dr. V.T. Kamble Professor
Dept. of Library & Information Science
Gulbarga University, Gulbarga - 585 106
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivashankar H. Manur, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Education
M.S. Building, Bangalore - 560 001
2. The Registrar
University of Agriculture Sciences
Raichur, P.B. No.329, UAS
Raichur - 584 102
3. Dr. Machendranath S.
Age: 40 years, Occ: Librarian
R/o. 276, Vidyanagar Colony
S.B. College Road, Gulbarga - 585 103
... Respondents
(By Sri A. Syed Habeeb, AGA for R-1;
Sri Amresh S. Roja, Advocate for R-2;
Sri Girish P.S., Advocate for R-3)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or any other suitable writ, quashing the order dated
25.06.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent in
No.R/UASR/RECTT./ADVT.5/2012-13/1043, vide Annexure-D
and etc.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group
This day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the second respondent, whereby the third respondent has been appointed as Deputy Librarian.
2. Petitioner was one of the qualified candidate for the post of Deputy Librarian (Associate Professor cadre) which was reserved post for Scheduled Caste candidate. The above post was called by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur- respondent No.2 by issuing notification dated 04.11.2011. Petitioner as well as third respondent applied for the said post. Petitioner is a Ph.D Degree holder with 61.35%, whereas the 3 third respondent is also a Ph.D Degree holder with 53.11%. The second respondent has appointed the third respondent as Deputy Librarian and posted at University at Agricultural Sciences, Raichur by an order dated 25.06.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the requisite qualification for the post of Deputy Librarian as per the notification dated 04.11.2011 was;
i. A Ph.D Degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentation/Archives and Manuscript keeping.
ii. A Master's degree in Library Sciences/Information Science/Documentation with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade of B in the UGC 7 points scale and consistently good academic record.
iii. At least 5 years of experience as Assistant Librarian in a University.
iv. Evidence of innovation in library services and organization of published work is desirable. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner possessed 61.35% in Master's degree - Library Science, whereas the respondent No.3 possessed 53.11%. Both the candidates did not possess five years of experience as Assistant Librarian in a 4 University. In such circumstances, the candidature of the petitioner having possessed 61.35% would have been considered for the post of Deputy Librarian rather than the respondent No.3, who was not qualified in view of the percentage of marks prescribed i.e., 55%. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that as per clause 3.9.0 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, the period of time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions. Accordingly, he seeks to quash the impugned order and consequently to direct the second respondent to hold fresh enquiry and interview for appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian, considering the petitioner's application for the same.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - University has filed the statement of objections and it is 5 contended that though the petitioner's score marks was 61.35% much higher compared to the respondent No.3 - 53.11%, but she did not had five years experience as prescribed in the notification. It is evident from the application under Annexure- B at item No.18, the experience is shown as less than five years. The Committee, relying on the Regulations, 2010 and the guidelines, selected the respondent No.3, since he possessed five years experience, and relying on the Statute and Regulations, the Committee relaxed the 5% marks, as the respondent No.3 is meritorious in all respects. The learned counsel reiterating the same submitted that the appointment of respondent No.3 is in conformity with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications etc.
5. The learned counsel Sri Girish P.S. appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner was not qualified for the appointment of the Deputy Librarian in terms of the notification for not possessing the minimum five years of experience as Assistant Librarian in a University, whereas the third respondent had total 73 months experience as guest 6 Lecturer/Librarian. In addition to this, by virtue of clause 3.4.1 of the UGC Regulations, 5% relaxation was required to be provided as regards the eligibility marks of 55%. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 being more meritorious than the petitioner, appointment of the respondent No.3 as the Deputy Librarian is justifiable.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the respective parties, it is clear that the petitioner possessed 61.35% marks in the Masters' Degree of Library Science and the respondent No.3 had 53.11% in the same subject. Applying clause 3.4.1 of the UGC Regulations, the respondent No.3 is provided with the relaxation of the 5% with respect to the eligibility marks of 55% based on the category of Scheduled Caste. The next question would be whether the respondent No.3 has fulfilled the other criteria prescribed in the notification namely, minimum five years of experience as Assistant Librarian in a University. To ascertain this aspect, it is apt to refer to clause 3.9.0 of the UGC Regulations, which reads thus:
7
"3.9.0 The period of time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions."
7. The particulars of experience in the field of Library Sciences as per clause 18 of the Application Form submitted by the respondent No.3 indicates as under:
18. Particulars of experience in the filed of Library Science/ Information Science/Documentation: (regular service rendered in all the cadres) Basic pay Period of (Certified Service Reason Name of Date of Date of copy of the Post held (years/ for Employer Joining leaving pay drawn Months/ leaving to be days) enclosed)
1) Guest- VSKU- 08.08. till 05 Asst. Bellary 2011 working Months - 25,000/-
Librarian
2) Guest KSWU- 06.09. 30.06. 10 -
Lecturer Bijapur 2010 2011 Months
NDC- July- April- 1 Years
3) Lecturer Gulbarga 2004 2006 & 09 -
Months
NG-PU- July- Dec- 06
4) Lecturer College 2004 2004 Months -
Gulbarga
KVB- July- Feb- 02 Years
5) Librarian Chintamani 2001 2004 & 07 -
Months
6) CMRIMS- Feb- June-
Librarian
Bangalore 2001 2001
8
On examination of the said particulars in the light of clause 3.9.0 keeping in mind the undisputed fact of the third respondent acquiring Ph.D. Degree in the year 2011, the experience in the field of Library Science of the respondent No.3 shall be less than five years. The appointment of the respondent No.3 as the qualified candidate to the post of Deputy Librarian was considering the entire experience as disclosed in item No.18 as more than five years. But, the same not being correct in view of clause 3.9.0 as referred to above, respondent No.3 cannot be considered as more meritorious candidate than the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that though the petitioner possessed 61.35% score in Master's Degree, the experience of five years was lacking. If this is considered, petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are not eligible for the post of Deputy Librarian as per the notification. Hence, the order of appointment at Annexure-D is unsustainable. Accordingly, deserves to be quashed.
8. Resultantly, the order of appointment dated 25.06.2012 passed by the second respondent vide 9 Annexure-D to the writ petition is quashed and the second respondent shall hold fresh interview for the post of Deputy Librarian at the second respondent-University in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG