Karnataka High Court
Sri Prashanth G S vs The Bangalore University on 26 November, 2024
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48381
WP No. 10483 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 10483 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PRASHANTH G S
S/O. SHIVANNA G R
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANJUNATHA NILAYA
SANNAPPA LAYOUT,
JATPAT NAGARA,
JOGIMATTI ROAD,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATHISH K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
VIJAYA P
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR
JNANABHARATI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
2. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48381
WP No. 10483 of 2020
3. SRI. B. SATHYANARAYANA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
MAJOR
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU - 560 056.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 27.12.2019 BEARING NO.EST-II:/APT/TEACHING/ BACKLOG/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-T) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.11.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV CAV ORDER Petitioner who was an applicant to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Electronic Science of -3- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 the Bangalore University, has called in question the order of appointment of the respondent No.3 and has sought for an order to appoint him to the said post.
2. In terms of Annexure-F, the Bangalore University (respondent No.1) had invited applications for filling up of teaching posts (backlog vacancies) from candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. As regards the post of Assistant Professor in Electronic Science, one post was reserved for the category of Scheduled Tribes. The last date fixed for making out applications was 23.04.2018.
3. Consequent to the interview process, the respondent No.3 i.e., Sri. B. Sathyanarayana was declared selected while the petitioner i.e., Sri. Prasanth G. S. was placed in the waiting list.
4. The petitioner has challenged the selection contending that the recruitment process was to be in terms of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled -4- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 Vacancies Reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the "2001 Rules"] and in terms of Rule 6, if there are no candidates who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years are available, candidates who have attained the age of 18 years but not attained the age of 29 years are to be included. In the present case, it is submitted that the respondent No.3 had not attained the age of 29 years nor any other candidate was within the said age group and accordingly, the petitioner who had the highest score in the age group of 18 years - 29 years ought to have been selected.
5. The petitioner had also relied on the order passed in W.P. No. 4923/2020 in Dr. Raghavendra H.K. v. State of Karnataka and Others, wherein, the coordinate bench had observed that the mode of recruitment as per the Special Rules ought to have been in strict compliance of Rule 6 which provided for selection of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 those between the age of 29 years to 40 years. It is submitted that the said order has eventually culminated in the order of the Apex Court in Chaitra Nagamanavar v.
State of Karnataka and Ors1[Chaitra Nagamanavar].
6. It is the case of the respondent No.3 that the qualification for the post mandated a Masters Degree in the relevant subject and as the petitioner admittedly possessed M. Tech (Digital Electronics and Communication Systems) under the engineering discipline, was not qualified for the said post. It was contended that Masters Degree in relevant subject referred to the Masters Degree in the Science Discipline viz., M.Sc. for the post of Assistant Professor in the Science Discipline which was in contra distinction to qualification of Assistant Professor in Engineering Discipline. It is contended that in the absence of such qualification, petitioner was ineligible and accordingly, could not have challenged selection of the respondent No.3. It was also contended that in terms of 1 Civil Appeal Nos. 67726773 of 2023 dated 02.05.2024 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 Rule 6 of the Rules, after applications were filed and formal eligibility was fulfilled, based on the qualifying examination marks, a list was required to be prepared of eligible candidates in the age group of 29 years - 40 years and as on the date of preparation of such list, the respondent No.3 had completed 29 years, though as on the date application respondent No.3 had not yet attained 29 years and accordingly, the respondent No.3 ought to have been selected having attained the age of 29 years and in the evaluation after the interview, had scored higher than the petitioner.
7. The respondent University had filed its statement of objections and defended the appointment of respondent No.3 while specifically contending that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification of a Masters Degree in Science stream and had a Masters Degree in the Engineering line.
8. Heard both sides.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020
9. It is not in dispute that the recruitment was to be in terms of the 2001 Rules as the recruitment in question related to filling up of backlog vacancies.
10. The Apex Court while considering recruitment to the Bangalore University backlog vacancies has held that the filing up of backlog vacancies was to be in terms of the 2001 Rules.
11. The relevant extract of Rules 6 and 7 of 2001 Rules reads as follows:
"6. List of Selected Candidates:- (1) The Selecting Authority shall, from among the candidates who have applied in pursuance to the publication inviting applications under rule 5 and who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years, prepare a list of Candidates for each category of posts in the order of merit on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination and taking into consideration the reservation for women, ex- servicemen, physically handicapped and project displaced persons, in accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) -8- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 Rules, 1977 and the rural candidates in accordance with the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments or posts (In the Civil Services of the State for Rural Candidates) Act, 2000. If however, sufficient number of candidates, who have attained the age of 29 years but not attained the age of 40 years are not available, the candidates, who have attained the age of 18 years but not attained the age of 29 years shall also be included in the select list in accordance with the provisions specified to the extent of such insufficient number.
7. Appointment of Candidates: (1) Candidates whose names are included in the list prepared under rule 6 may be appointed by the appointing authority in the vacancies in the order in which their names appear in the list after satisfying itself after such enquiry as it may consider necessary that each of the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment.
(2) The inclusion of the name of the candidate in the list published under rule 6 shall not confer any right of appointment."
12. A reading of Rule 6 provides that from amongst the candidates who have applied, a list of candidates who are qualified and within the age group of 29 years to 40 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 years is to be prepared. If there are no sufficient number of candidates who are within the category of the age group of 29 years to 40 years, then the candidates who are otherwise qualified and fall within the age group of 18 years to 29 years are to be included in the select list.
13. In the present case, the comparative date of birth of the petitioner and respondent No.3 are as follows:
Petitioner - 10.05.1985;
Respondent No.3 - 10.06.1989
14. Normally unless the rules otherwise provide, the eligibility is determined as on the date of the last date for submitting the applications as stipulated in the notification. The last date for submitting the applications was 23.04.2018. As on which date, the age of respondent No.3 was 28 years 10 months. However, reading of Rule 6 of 2001 Rules would indicate the requirement to '... prepare a list of candidates'. Such preparation of a list is at a point of time subsequent to filing of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 applications'. The objective of the stipulation under Rule 6 relates to preference being given to those who have attained the age group of 29 years to 40 years and in absence of eligible candidates in such age group, there would be consideration of eligible candidates in the age group of 18 years to 29 years.
15. The eligibility under the 2001 Rules, as per Rule 4 is that the candidate should have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 40 years. Accordingly, respondent No.3 was eligible to apply despite not having attained the age of 29 years.
16. It is only subsequent to stage of application being made that list as contemplated under Rule 6 is to be prepared. Preparation of the list presupposes that scrutiny of application is done so as to weed out ineligible applications. The list under Rule 6 would contain list of eligible applications.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020
17. In the present case, a list has been prepared on 22.07.2019 at Annexure K consisting of those applications which after scrutiny are found to be in order. Under the category of Assistant Professor, Department of Electronic Science, the list of applications in order and not rejected which is prepared after initial scrutiny contains the following:
"Department of Electronic Science POST: Assistant Professor No. of Posts:- 01 Reservation:-ST (Others) Sl. Name and Caste Date of Academic % No. of Teaching No Address of Birth Qualificatio Public Experienc the ns ations e candidates 1 B. ST 10.06. B.Sc M.Sc: 66.62 - Guest Sathyanaray 1989 Applied 68.70 Lecturer-ana Electronics 09
M. Phil: months
76.75 &
Ph.D:
2017
2 Prashanth ST 10.05. M. Tech 74.83 - Lecturer-
GS 1985 NET-2014 5 months
SET-2014 Project
Engineer
-1 Year
11
months
Guest
Lecturer-
3 months
3 Krishna ST 02.05. M.Sc Ph.D 61.20 Lecturer-
Singh 1979 - 2012 12 years
4 Yellalinga ST 20.06. M.E 72.12 Project
1982 Assistant
- 1 year
6 months
Senior
Engineer
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381
WP No. 10483 of 2020
Assistant
- 12
years
5 Ashwini K V ST 12.10. M.E: 73.13 Lecturer-
1984 Digital 2 years
Electronics Asst.
Professor
- 3 years
6 Pallavi SC 05.05. BE: Post
Deekshith 1983 M.Tech Reserved
for ST
7 Shwetha SC 23.07. M.Sc Ph.D 78.55 Post
1986 - Persuing Reserved
for ST
8 Tejashwini ST 22.06. M.Tech: 81.60 Asst.
HN 1988 Ph.D Professor
Persuing - 3 years
NET-2016
9 Ananda A S ST 06.05. M.Sc Ph.D 70.40
1989 - Persuing
10 Madhura N ST 01.10. M.Tech: 72.33 Research
Talwar 1989 NET-2016 Assistant
- 1 year
8 months
11 Pradeep T M ST 17.12. M.Tech 70.54 - JRF-
1988 Ph.D.Persu 2014-16
ing SRF-
2016-18
12 Sachin ST 07.03. M.Tech 70.25 - Asst.
1992 Prof - 8
months
13 Chaithra K ST 07.04. M.TEch 73.25 - -
1992 GATE-
2016
14 Anushree. R ST 08.04. ME 55.00 Instructo
1993 r - SMIC-
1 year
15 Kumar BE - - -
Bellikatti
16 Nethra C K 28.10. BE 66.62 - -
1994
18. A perusal of the details would indicate that the list prepared at Annexure K does not exclude those in the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 category of age group between 18 years to 29 years which are follows:
Sachin ST 07.03. M.Tech 70.25 - Asst.
1992 Prof - 8
months
Chaithra K ST 07.04. M.TEch 73.25 - -
1992 GATE-
2016
Anushree. R ST 08.04. ME 55.00 Instructo
1993 r - SMIC-
1 year
Nethra C K 28.10. BE 66.62 - -
1994
19. The list at Annexure K is prepared on
22.07.2019, which is not the list as contemplated under Rule 6 of 2001 Rules.
20. In terms of Annexure L, list is prepared on 19.09.2019 consisting of an eligible list and objections if any to the said list was permitted to be filed by
23.09.2019. The list of candidates found eligible are found at Sl. No.1 to 6 which is extracted as hereunder:
"4. Department of Electronic Science POST: Assistant Professor No. of Posts: 01 Reservation: ST (Others) Sl. Name and Ca Date of Academic % Remarks No Address of the ste Birth Qualifications candidate
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 1 Ashwini K V ST 12.10.1984 M.E: Digital 73.13 Eligible Electronics NET-2017 2 Ananda A S ST 06.05.1989 M.Sc: Ph.D.2018 70.40 Eligible 3 Madhura N ST 01.10.1989 M. Tech: NET-2016 72.33 Eligible Talwar 4 Prashanth G S ST 10.05.1985 M.Tech NET-2014 74.83 Eligible SET-2014 5 B. ST 10.06.1989 M.SC: Applied 68.70 Eligible Sathyanarayana Electronics M. Phil:
76.75%Ph.D-2017 NET-2013 M.Phil-2013
SET 2014 6 Tejashwini H N ST 22.06.1988 M.Tech: Ph.D: 81.60 Eligible Perusing NET-2016
21. It would indicate that the names at Sl.No.1 to 6 are prepared keeping in mind the mandate under Rule 6.
All the candidates at Sl.No.1 to 6 as on the date of preparation of list at Annexure-L i.e., on 19.09.2019, had attained the age of 29 years. The respondent No.3 as on the date of list at Annexure K, which is the preliminary list of applications in order, was aged 30 years 01 month and as on Annexure L was aged about 30 years 03 months. If that were to be so, the question of excluding the respondent No.3 and taking recourse to candidates in the age group of 18 years to 29 years would not arise.
22. Though it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 ought to have attained the age of 29
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 years as on the last date of application and in the absence of which he was not entitled for a place in the merit list prepared under Rule 6 of 2001 Rules, such contention cannot be accepted. The preparation of list under Rule 6 being at the stage after scrutiny of the application and in the present case even at the stage of list at Annexure K, the respondent No.3 had already attained the age of 29 years. As pointed out above, respondent No.3 being eligible to apply in terms of Rule 3 of 2001 Rules, his exclusion subsequent to the stage of application at the time of making list under Rule 6 is only to afford preference to those who are in the age group of 29 years to 40 years. If none of the candidates in the said age group are available, recourse could be had to those who were younger i.e., in the age group of 18 years to 29 years. This exercise being made at a point in time of post scrutiny of application wherein, ineligible applications were rejected, age would be as on the date of preparation of eligible list, which would be the list at Annexure L in the present case.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020
23. The reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shankar K Mandal and Others v State of Bihar and Others2, is by asserting that the cut- off date by reference to which eligibility requirement must be satisfied, would be the date by which applications are to be made to the competent authority. However, the said stipulation is hedged with a rider regarding date mentioned under the recruitment rules. In the present case, Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules permits the respondent No.3 to apply. Further Rule 6 provides for preparation of list of eligible candidates. A reading of Rule 3 and Rule 6 would indicate that eligibility is as on date of the list prepared under Rule 6. The Apex Court itself has laid down that the question of eligibility shall be the appointed date in the advertisement for applications to be received "If there is no cut-off date appointed by the Rules". In Rule 6, there is a requirement to "prepare a list of candidates for each category...". This preparation being subsequent to the 2 (2003) 9 SCC 519
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 applications filed, the fall back direction to take date for making applications would not arise.
24. The reliance on the case of Chaitra Nagamanavar (supra) of the Apex Court does not improve the case of the petitioner as there is no dispute regarding the applicability of the 2001 Rules. Further, in the said case, the question of eligibility and age to be reckoned as on the date of preparation of list under Rule 6 of 2001 Rules was never raised nor discussed.
25. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Madhusudan R. Naik appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that the petitioner is not a person who is legally aggrieved as he himself is not qualified and does not possess a Masters Degree from the Science Stream. The requirement for the post of Assistant Professor, Electronic Science, being a subject under the science stream as stipulated in Clause 4.0.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and UGC (4th Amendment) Regulations 2016 is as follows:
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 "ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Social Sciences, Education, Languages, Journalism and Mass Communication)
i) Good academic record as defined by the concerned University with 50% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university."
26. The Masters degree as regards the Assistant Professor would be M.Sc. as regards Electronic Science.
27. Insofar as the Assistant Professor, Engineering, the qualification reads as follows:
"ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (Engineering / Technology & Architecture)
i) B.E/B.Tech., and M.E., / M. Tech., in relevant branch with First class or equivalent either in B.E., / B. Tech., or M.E., / M. Tech."
28. Clearly, the distinction between a Master Degree from the Science stream would be M.Sc., while for
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 an Assistant Professor in the Engineering stream would require to hold B.E./B.Tech and M.Tech/ M.E. Accordingly, the qualification for Assistant Professor in Electronic Science would be an M.Sc. degree which admittedly the petitioner does not poses as his bachelor degree is B.E. Degree and his Master's Degree in M.Tech which is in the engineering division.
29. Though the counsel for the petitioner would point out the obtaining of Karnataka State Eligibility Test (KSET) for Lecturer/ Assistant Professorship in Electronic Science as well as National Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor by the UGC in the subject of Electronic Science, the said certificates cannot be a substitute for the qualification of a Master Degree in relevant subject. The eligibility certificates are requirement in addition to the substantive technical qualification of a Master Degree.
30. It is the contention of the petitioner that he being short listed by the employer, the University cannot at this stage take a different stand. The stand taken by the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48381 WP No. 10483 of 2020 University in the Statement of objections is that the petitioner does not have a Master's Degree in the relevant subject. Such a contention being fundamental to his eligibility can be raised at any stage. The principle of estoppel cannot be raised as there cannot be estoppel pleaded against a legally stipulated eligibility under the Rules. Further the respondent could support the impugned action taken by raising the issue of eligibility of the petitioner as it is his eligibility alone that would grant him audience as being legally aggrieved.
31. Accordingly, in light of the discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP