Karnataka High Court
Sri R S Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25489
WP No. 19006 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 19006 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI R.S.RAJU
S/O LATE G SHIVARUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
NEAR NH4 CIRCLE
CHITRADURGA-577 501
2. SRI V.PRAKASH
S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA C
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS LECTURER
SRI VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
NEAR NH4 CIRCLE
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI.,ADVOCATE)
by
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA AND:
GUPTA
SREENATH
Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU -560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25489
WP No. 19006 of 2021
EDUCATION, K.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU -560 001
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
SHIVAMOGGA-577 202
4. THE PRINCIPAL
SRI VENKATESHWARA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
NEAR NH4 CIRCLE
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3
NOTICE TO R-4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD 30.03.2021, 19.04.2021 AND
08.07.2021 ISSUED BY R-2 AND R-3 VIDE ANNX-A, B AND C
RESPECTIVELY AS SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
ORDER DTD 28.03.2016 ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners herein are assailing orders dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure-A), 19.4.2021 (Annexure- B) and 8.7.2021 (Annexure-C) issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, inter alia sought for implementation of the communication dated 20.7.2016 (Annexure-NN) issued by the -3- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 3rd respondent by extending University Grants Commission ('UGC' for short) pay scale to the petitioners from the date of acquiring M.Phil qualification.
2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioners herein are working in 4th respondent College as Lecturers and it is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are claiming UGC pay scale from the date of acquiring the qualification of M.Phil in terms of the policy decision taken by the State of Karnataka and also by the UGC.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have completed their M.Phil Course before 2009 and accordingly, have approached the respondent authorities for extending the UGC pay scales. In this regard, the petitioners referred to the Government Order dated 18.5.2011, whereby UGC pay scale was granted to the Lecturers of A.R.M. First Grade College, Davangere (Annexure-GG). The petitioners have also stated in the writ petition that similar relief was extended to one M.S. Veena, Lecturer working in the Sarvagnya College of Education, Vijayanagar as she has acquired M.Phil qualification, as per -4- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 order dated 7.11.2015 (Annexure-HH). It is further contended that, the petitioners have made representation to the respondent authorities seeking extension of UGC pay scale on par with similarly placed Lecturers. However, the case of the petitioners was considered and the 3rd respondent herein by letter dated 20.7.2016 (Annexure-NN) has stated about the extension of the UGC pay scale to the petitioners herein subject to the approval to be made by the 2nd respondent herein. Despite the same, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned letter dated 30.3.2021 (Annexure-A) rejecting the prayer of the petitioners with regard to extension of the UGC pay scale on par with other Lecturers, Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and M.S. Nagaraja, learned AGA.
5. Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the UGC notification dated 1.6.2009 and referred to the course work reflected in the said notification and submitted that -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 the course work shall be treated as Pre M.Phil/Ph.D preparation and M.Phil degree is the requisite qualification for extension of UGC pay scale on par with the Lecturers whose case has been considered by the respondent authorities as per Annexure-HH. He also referred to UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (3rd Amendment), Regulation 2009 produced at Annexure-EE published during March-2011 and submitted that though NET is compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer, however the candidates having M.Phil Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG Level Teaching. He also referred to the letter dated 20.7.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent with regard to consideration of case of the petitioners and thereby contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Sri M.S. Nagaraja, learned AGA appearing for the respondents herein while reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections contended that the exemption which has been given insofar as the Teachers who have passed M.Phil cannot be considered for extension of UGC pay scale and further he contended that as on the date of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 acquiring of the qualification by the petitioners insofar as M.Phil is concerned, on such date the respondent college was not admitted to grant-in-aid and as such sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for parties, it is not dispute that the petitioners are working as Lecturers in the 4th respondent college On careful examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that the petitioners have passed M.Phil during 2009. In this regard, it has to be considered as to whether the candidate having M.Phil degree is exempted from NET and the relevant regulation in this regard is as under:
Further, the above provision brought in to effect by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teaching in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) (1st Amendment), Regulation 2002, was further substituted by the following provision of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and Career Advancement of teachers in Universities and -7- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 Institutions affiliated to it) (2nd Amendment), Regulation 2006:
"NET shall remain compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for those with Post Graduate Degree. However, the candidate having Ph.D Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. "The candidates having M.Phil, Degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG level teaching only".
(emphasis supplied)
8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS -VS- MERLIN J.N. AND ANOTHER reported in (2022)9 SCC 389, wherein at paragraphs 8 and 10 it is held as follows.
8. Dr Jayakumar applied for the post. The application was processed, and pursuant to his interview by the Selection Committee, he was assessed and ranked in the first position on 4-8-2012. The respondent Dr Merlin J.N. was placed at the second position. Feeling aggrieved, she preferred a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. [Merlin J.N. v. University of -8- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 Kerala, WP (C) No. 20055 of 2012, order dated 1-2- 2017 (Ker)] The grounds urged by Dr Merlin were that, inter alia, she had been unjustly denied four marks (concerning requisite teaching experience and publication in a recognised journal) which ought to have been awarded to her. Additionally, she challenged the appointment of Dr Jayakumar, alleging that it contravened the 2009/10 UGCR i.e. as Dr Jayakumar had not obtained his PhD in accordance with the 2009 PhD Regulations, he was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer under the 2009/10 UGCR. A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, by judgment dated 1-2-2017, [Merlin J.N. v. University of Kerala, WP (C) No. 20055 of 2012, order dated 1-2-2017 (Ker)] held that Dr Jayakumar was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of this Court in P. Suseela v. UGC [ (2015) 8 SCC 129 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] as well as the Kerala High Court Full Bench decision in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2016 SCC OnLine Ker 41257 : (2016) 2 KLT 245] . The University and Dr Jayakumar appealed to the Division Bench which affirmed [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 25895] the ruling of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench noticed a subsequent judgment of this Court in State of M.P. v. Manoj Sharma [ (2018) 3 SCC 329 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 585] and -9- NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 the (then) latest amendment to the regulations (hereinafter "the 2016 UGCR/fourth amendment") which sought to somewhat relieve the rigours of the 2009/10 UGCR and enable those awarded PhD degrees prior to the cut-off date of 11-7-2009 to also be considered for appointment as Lecturers. The Division Bench held that the 2016 UGCR was applicable only prospectively, and hence denied the benefit to Dr Jayakumar.
10. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the fourth amendment placed the matter beyond any doubt because it rendered eligible candidates who had acquired their PhD degree before 11-7-2009. In this regard, great emphasis was placed on the following:
"The proviso prescribed under Regulations 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (3th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 regarding exemption to the candidates registered for PhD programme prior to 11-7-2009 shall stand amended and be read as under:
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 Provided further, the award of degree to candidates registered for the MPhil/PhD programme prior to 11-7-2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/bye-laws/regulations of the institutions awarding the degree and the PhD candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/ Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:
(a) PhD degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only;
(b) Evaluation of the PhD thesis by at least two external examiners;
(c) Open PhD viva voce of the candidate had been conducted;
(d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her PhD work out of which at least one must be in a refereed journal;
(e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/seminars, based on his/her PhD work.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021
(a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the Vice-Chancellor/Pro Vice-Chancellor/Dean (Academic Affairs)/Dean (University instructions)."
9. Having taken note of the Regulation 2009 referred to above and on perusal of writ papers, it is clear that the proposal made by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent herein as per letter dated 16.1.2016, whereby the consideration has been made with regard to extending UGC pay scale to the petitioners herein. The said aspect is also reflected in the letter dated 20.7.2016 (Annexure-NN) addressed by the 3rd respondent herein to the 4th respondent college. Having taken note of the fact that similar exemption and approval has also been already given to some of the Lecturers, particularly referring to the Government Order dated 7.11.2015 (Annexure- HH), I am of the view that the reason assigned by the respondent authorities in letter dated 30.3.2021 (Annexure-A) is not just and proper and the said communication is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for the similar benefits which have been extended to the other Lecturers, as per the Government Order dated 7.11.2015 (Annexure-HH).
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled for the UGC benefits in terms of the Regulations, 2009 and other consequential benefits. Compliance has to be made within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 ESIJ: W.P.No.19006/2021 16.08.2023 ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
This Court by order dated 21.07.2023 allowed the writ petition and as such, observed that the petitioners are entitled for UGC benefits in terms of the Regulations, 2009 and other consequential benefits.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in view of allowing the writ petition, the prayer made at (a) and (b) is required to be allowed.
Accordingly, order dated 30.03.2021 in reference No.PÁ²E/180/AiÀÄÄf¹«/2015-16/¸Éë-1/©.Jqï, 19.04.2021 in
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25489 WP No. 19006 of 2021 reference No. ¥ÁæPÀ²:PÁ²E:AiÀÄÄf¹ªÉñÉæÃ: 175:2016-17 & 08.07.2021 in reference No.¥ÁæPÀ²:PÁ²E:AiÀÄÄf¹ªÉñÉæÃ:175:2016-17 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Annexure-A, B and C respectively are hereby quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned.
The petitioners are entitled for consequential benefits from the date on which they acquired M.Phil. degree from the respective University.
The order dated 21.07.2023 shall be read along with this order.
SD/-
JUDGE VNR