Karnataka High Court
Smt (Dr) N Laxmidevi vs University Of Mysore on 24 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 2968
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.18688/2007 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.(DR.) N.LAXMIDEVI
D/O SRI.NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
WORKING AS SENIOR SCALE LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY,
MYSORE UNIVERSITY,
MANASA GANGOTRI, MYSORE AND R/AT
701, E & F BLOCK, CHITRABHANU ROAD,
KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.SUBBARAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
CRAWFORD HALL, MYSORE - 5
2. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR
AND CHAIRMAN, CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE - 5
3. SRI.RAVISHANKAR RAI
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
2
PROFESSOR IN MICRO BIOLOGY
MICROBIOLOGY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN BOTANY
MANASA GANGOTRI
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MYSORE
4. DR.SHISHUPAL
MAJOR, WORKING AS READER IN MICRO
BIOLOGY, KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY
SHIMOGA ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.T.MOHAN, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI.K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADV. FOR R3;
R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DT.23.03.2007 ISSUED BY THE R1, A COPY IS PRODUCED AND
MARKED AS ANN-L AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND
19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BESIDES THE SAME
HAVING BEEN IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 53 OF THE
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITIES ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 05.10.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order bearing No.ET8/30/2006-07 dated 23/3/2007 issued by the 1st respondent, University of Mysore in so far as 3 recommending the third respondent at (Merit-I) in General Merit Category and in so far as it places the 4th respondent's name for the post of professor in micro-biology in waiting list and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that first respondent University by notification dated 25.03.2006 invited applications from eligible candidates to fill vacant posts available in different departments. Respondent No.1 notified one post for professor in department of micro-biology. The petitioner submits that she belongs to II-A category whereunder two posts were reserved for the post of professors out of which one post was reserved for woman belonging to II-A category and no posts were earmarked for general merit category. The impugned selection of the third respondent to the post of professor in Micro-biology and placing 4th respondent in the waiting list, who have no basic essential qualification in micro-biology, they do not have any teaching and research experience in the relevant field of Micro-biology, is not proper. The third respondent has done Master Degree in Botany whereas the petitioner though has master degree in Botany has 4 Ph.D degree in Agricultural Micro-biology. The Petitioner has 2 international papers and 10 articles have been published in the national papers. She has also written a book called 'Tutor for Miocro-biology and biotechnology for CET/VGC/CSIR. The petitioner stated that the Respondent No.3 is not at all qualified for being appointed to the post of professor in Micro-biology subject as none of his degrees are in the subject of Micro- biology. The petitioner has also stated that out of 6 posts of professors no posts were earmarked for being filled by selecting GM candidates. The 3rd Respondent belongs to GM category and the selection is in violation of the Government Order dated 20.6.1995. Overlooking the government order the respondent University has selected the third and placed fourth respondent in the waiting list to the post of Professor in Micro-biology. Thus the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondent No.1 has filed statement of objections inter alia stating that the University received applications and the Board of Appointment constituted under Section 53(2)(b) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, hereinafter referred 5 to as `the Act' for short, interviewed all of them on 28.2.2007. The Board of Appointment considered the academic qualifications, higher qualifications, teaching experience, their contribution to the field in the form of publications, participation in seminars and also the performance in the interview and prepared merit list as per the statute framed under Section 53(6) of the Act and as per the inter-se merit list. The 1st Respondent has stated in the statement of objections that the Petitioner has 55% in B.Sc, 64% in M.Sc, and has 13 years of teaching experience and 12 publications to her credit. Whereas, the respondent No.3 has 69% in B.Sc, 68% in M.Sc and possess Ph.D. he also has 2 years and 14 years of Post-graduate teaching and under-graduate teaching respectively and also has 54 publications to his credit and has also undertaken a few research projects. The following persons who formed the BOA are the subject experts for the purpose of selection of professor of microbiology. It is also further stated that the changes made in the constitution of the Board by the Vice-Chancellor without consulting the chancellor or without getting the prior sanction of the State Government is incorrect as the same was made for 6 some administrative reasons. The interview was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Hence recommendation of 3rd respondent and acceptance by the syndicate and his appointment is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the writ papers.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification of Master Degree in Botany and Ph.D in Agricultural Micro-biology whereas the third respondent was Master Degree in Botany and Ph.D in Botany. The UGC regulation dated 24.12.1998 clearly specifies the required qualification and experience the candidate should posses to be selected for the post of professor. The notification states, the candidate should be an eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years experience in post graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National level 7 institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to the knowledge. In exceptional cases, the teachers with 15 years of UG teaching/research experience could also be considered. It is also contended that the first respondent had notified 6 posts of professors and all the 6 posts were reserved in favour of the candidates belonging to the other backward communities. No other candidates except the Petitioner was fully qualified for the post of Professor as the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not possess any degrees in the subject of Micro-biology. Thus both third and fourth respondents were ineligible without a basic qualification. It is submitted that the Board of Appointment appreciating her merit ought to have considered and selected her for the post of lecturer in Bio-Technology. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted and justified the selection and appointment of the third respondent and placing the 4th respondent in the waiting list. It is submitted, in these types of matters, the jurisdiction of the Court is very limited and it is not a matter where the interference of this Court is called for. 8
6. As per the employment notification, for the post of Professor, the requisite qualification is as follows:
"The incumbent shall be an eminent scholar with published work of high quality, and shall be actively engaged in research with minimum of 10 years experience in Post graduate teaching and/or research at the University/ National level institutions. Experience to include guiding research at Doctoral level."
OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.
7. The Respondent No.3 has stated that he is highly qualified and has excellent academic achievements to his credit than the petitioner. He also has a teaching experience of 18 years including 3 years as temporary lecturer. He also has 14 International and 36 National publications to his credit and has also edited 4 books and has successfully guided six Ph.D students. The third respondent has also scored the highest marks among all the candidates who attended the interview. Admittedly, the third respondent has Masters Degree in Botany. 9 It is also not in dispute that both petitioner and third respondent are Ph.D holders. As per the employment notification the requisite qualification is 10 years of Post-graduate teaching. The employment and the UGC notification nowhere prescribe that the candidate to be selected for the post of professor should possess a master's degree and Ph.D in the same subject applied for. In the absence of such express mention it is the discretion of the Board of Appointment to select the best candidate out of the available candidates. And it is also to be mentioned here that the respondent No.3 has successfully guided 6 Ph.D students and 15 M.Phil students and the same has been awarded to them whereas the Petitioner does not have any such achievements to her credit.
8. Having regard to the above facts and the material on record it is very much clear that the Respondent No.3 is more meritorious compared to the petitioner and has also complied with requirements to the post of professor. No flaw could be found in the decision of the selection committee in selecting respondent No.3 to the post of professor. With the limited scope 10 for interference in these types of matters, this court will not enter into correctness or otherwise of awarding of marks in the interview.
9. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not the matter where interference of this Court is called for. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd