Karnataka High Court
Dr Shantadevi Sannellappanavar vs State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
WPLNO.G1L306/2001 & WP NO SISO? /200) IN TRE HIGH COURT OF KARNATARA CIRCUIT BENCH AY DHARWAD DATED THIS THE LI' DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. BEFORE .. THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHAN' ANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION Ne. 3h 306 / 2001 (S- PRE iP WRIT Pic an EN [ON Noy Sh 1307/2001 BETWEEN: I. DR SHANTADEV] SANNELLAFPANAVAR W/O LAXMANAKUMAR, AGED: 49 YEARS READER IN KANNADS AT KANNADA ADYAYANAPEETA, KARD INATAKA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD... 2. DRS » SUL OCHANA A SANGANABASAVA MATT! WhO s ANGANA PASAVA-MATT! AGED: 55 YEARS, READER " UBANN: ADA AT KANNADA ADYAY, ANA PEETA A, KRARNAT <A UNIVERSITY DHARWAD ; PE TTTIONERS | (BY. SRI-KADAKA ATTL, ADV FOR S.N.BANAKAR, ADV. & "RIL.PATIE. ADV) © "Ad, SPATE OF KARNATARA : BY IPS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT -- EDU CATION DEPARTMENT, MES S BUILDING, BANGALOR oes = ee ee ee dmoxdey ance elon oad b ba os seedy pent pues af ede have also sought for declaration that, the exclusion of the WPLNO.S1306/2001 & WPLNO.31307/2001 2, THE KARNTARA UNIVERSITY DHARWAD, REP BY IPS REGISTRAR 3. DRUGSMT.) MADHU VENKA REDDY MAJOR, READER IN KANNADA a KRARNANTABKA UNTVERSITY, DHARWAD . 4. DR. B. 6B. BIRADAR © MAJOR, READER IN KANNADA AT" RARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DH. ARW AD . SIRE SPON DEN TS (BY SMT. SAVITHA NPA ui L, HOG Pp FOR R1 mee SRIMALLIKARJUN.S. HIREMATH, ADV FOR: RE SRLVIGNESWAR S. s. SHASTRI, ADV- FOR R3 & R4} THES PETITION [SPILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CON ISTITUTI PON OP INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT EXCLUS! LOR. 'OF THE: NAMES (OF THE PETITIONERS PROM THE SPaATuTs GOVE RNI NG TIME BOUND PROMOTION OF LECTURERS EN KA RNATARA UNIVERSITY PURSUANT TO WHICH ORDER OR. 16: 12. 98 VIDE ANN-O IS ISSUED IN SO FAR AS iT MEXCLI es. THE. PETITIONERS [IS [LLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY, UNFAIR AND UNJUST AND mT. red THES E "PE TONS 'COMING ON FOR PINAL HEARING . THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
~ Petitioners have sought for quashing the order of "> promouorr granted in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the pest of Reader and thereafter to the post of Professor. Thev t WPNO.S1306 J 2001 & WPONO OLSO7 (2001 that, a Lecturer with Ph.D. qualification with 12 years of teaching experience or a Lecturer without Ph.D. quatlifice Gon with LS years experience, shall be conside nol entitied to be considered under the Sahems of Eme" bound promotion for the post of Readers "Wel i 3.08 990 avid"
09.01.1990 respectively inasmuch' .the petitioners had not got Ph.D. qualthication til chet day. Phos: Is years teaching experierice is fo be taken into: Cons ideration lor being eligible to get time bound prorniction. 'Since the pétiioners completed 15 years of experi 'the month of'Jan 1990, they could not have been appointed "as Readers varlier thereto. The cutoff date available for time bound promotion was on 15.11.1988, which means "the last da te for granting tirme bound promotion "was 15. Pe. L98s. As on that day, neither did the petiuoriers 4, nor did they complete 15 vears of e x pe aye jenc & inh ul > University.
3. Whereas the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were in the year 1973 as mentioned a sverdifled Lo be promoted after 15 Vears OL SEPrVicé DArsuani to ventgeneee \ Syn vot o be Said tobe iHegal.
we NO.31306/2001 NOLS 1SO7 /2001 the statute of time bound promotion scheme. «. Thus, respondent Nos, 3 and 4 were promoted in the year TORS 'to the post of Reader.
4, if is relevant to not: that, thé ease vof - ive respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is mot considered rher on the:
ound that, they are not in the } teat hing pe sts DELL are | in allied category of posts, Similarly, situated certain persons as that of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed wri petinon -No.8505/ 1986. The Said Writ petition was. allowed. directing' the University to consider the-case of (he persons Working in allied category of Promo fed. "The WA .No. 2049/1995 was posts alse for "being fled against the ae HA writ peltion No.8505/ 1986. This Court dismissed the write ppes al. In view of the same, the case of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were navirie
- Of pasis was alsa considered for time bound promotion after 15 "tne date of joining services. In view of the above, NOTION accorded to Lae gy esporndent Nos. 3 and 4 cannet Fae WP.NO.3 1306/2601 6 WP.NO.3 1307 / op See 6 a S. Prom the aforementioned facts GF the case clear that, the petitioners could not have been promoted a
200) , it is ee "the post of Reader under time bound sche > prior tor 13.0% 4969 © and 09.01.1990 respectively.
entitled to the rehef as prayed for. Petitions rail-. Accordingly, writ petitions stand disnvissed. - Sd/-
r eps a IUDGE MBS /-