Karnataka High Court
N. Chandrasekharaiah vs The Secretary, Karnataka Legislative ... on 11 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR6095, 2006(1)KARLJ357
Author: B.S. Patil
Bench: B.S. Patil
ORDER B.S. Patil, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 03.06.1999 passed by the 1st respondent thereby promoting Sri. S. Dwarakanath, the respondent no. 3 herein as Editor of Debates. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to promote him to the post of Editor of Debates in the place of 3rd respondent with retospective effect from 03.06.1999 with all consequential benefits. Petitioner has also challenged the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1998 insofar as they prescribe degree from a recognised University with Kannada as second language or as an optional subject as academic qualification for the post of Editor of Debates.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Kannada reporter in the Karnataka Legislature Secretariat and that he reported for duty on 27.04.1973. That he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the post namely a pass in SSLC with a certificate showing proficiency in Kannada shorthand examination. That during 1997, the Karnataka Legislature Secretariat was bifurcated into two independent Secretariats known as The Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat and The Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat. Upon bifurcation, the petitioner opted to work in the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat. The Service Rules for the staff working in the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat was published as per the Notification dated 20.08.1998. The said Rules have come into effect from 02.04.1998. Copy of the Rules is produced at Annexure-G. Petitioner was working as Recording Officer since 17.09.1984, which post is equivalent to the post of Assistant Editor of Debates. The next promotional post is to the cadre of Editor of Debates. He has obtained Post Graduate degree, that is, M.A. in Kannada awarded by the Open University as a correspondence course. Since he is the senior most Recording Officer/Assistant Editor of Debates ranked at serial number one in the seniority list, he made representations seeking promotion to the next higher grade of Editor of Debates against the vacant post. But, without considering his case, the 3rd respondent came to be promoted by order dated 03.06.1999, which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:
(i) That the petitioner is senior to respondent No. 3 as per the seniority list vide Annexure-K and that he could not have been ignored while passing the impugned order.
(ii) That the relevant Rules providing the requisite qualification for the post of Editor of Debates required a degree with knowledge in Kannada which the petitioner satisfies.
(iii) That in the absence of any prescription of bachelor's degree in the Rules, possessing Master's degree in kannada fully satisfied the requirement of the Rules looking at the object with which the qualification was prescribed.
(iv) That, having noticed that the case of the petitioner was wrongly overlooked, the authorities have corrected the mistake by passing another order according deemed promotion to the petitioner with effect from an anterior date which is challenged in the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No. 18204/05 filed by the 3rd respondent herein.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:
K.K. Jyothi and Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2002(93) SLR 1205) (2002(99) SLR 1205).
K. Narasimha Murthy and Ors. v. K.P.S.C. and Ors.,
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has contended that the requirement of the Rules clearly suggest that a candidate must be a degree holder having studied Kannada as second language or as an optional subject. The degree referred to herein is none else than the bachelor's degree and a candidate possessing M.A. in Kannada correspondence course without studying the prescribed subjects for the bachelor's degree is not qualified. He further submits that the petitioner has himself understood the qualification prescribed as the bachelor's degree with Kannada as second language or as an optional subject as is clear from the representation submitted by him to the authorities, copy of which is produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition, wherein he has suggested for inclusion of a proviso in the relevant rule inserting Master's degree in Kannada as the prescribed qualification. He has further contended that the cannons of interpretation required that the Rule have to be given its full meaning by adopting a literal interpretation. He has sought to distinguish the judgment and has placed reliance on the following judgments:
The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Bangalore and Ors. v. N.C. Hugar, 1981 (1) SLR 469 P.M. Latha and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., .
Dr. Nanda Ballabh Pathak v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1996(4) SLR 720.
Babhuram v. C. C. Jacob and Ors., .
6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are:
(i) Whether the petitioner who possesses the post graduate degree in Kannada awarded by the Mysore University by way of correspondence course satisfies the requisite qualification for the post as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for the post of Editor of Debates and is therefore entitled for promotion in the place of the 3rd respondent with retrospect effect from 03.06.1999 ?
(ii) Whether the impugned order dated 03.06.1999 giving promotion to the 3rd respondent to the post of Editor of Debates is illegal and calls for interference ?
7. It has to be mentioned at the out set that though the petitioner has challenged the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, insofar it prescribes the degree from a recognised University with Kannada as second language or as an optional subject as 'absurd, unwarranted and without any basis', Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically submitted that he is not pressing this prayer. Therefore, there is no need to examine the validity and correctness of the 1998 Recruitment Rules. In fact, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the said rules the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and the respondent-authorities ought not to have ignored the petitioner while preferring the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the only question that requires to be considered is the effect of the 1998 Rules and the nature of the qualification prescribed for the post of Editor of Debates under the 1st respondent. It is therefore necessary to extract the relevant Rule prescribing the requisite qualification for the post of Editor Debates:
SI.No Category of Posts Pay Scale Method of Qualification
Recruitment
1. Editor of Debates 2375-4450 By Promotion a) must be
from the cadre holder of
of Recording Degree
Officer. of a
recognised
University
with
Kannada as
second
language
or as an
optional
subject; and
b) must have
put in a
service of not
less than 5
years in the
cadre of
Recording
Officer
8. A perusal of the qualification prescribed as per the rules extracted herein above makes it clear that the candidate must be a holder of a degree of a recognised University with kannada as second language or as an optional subject. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner possessed a pass in S.S.L.C. as the qualification. He has not pursued his studies and has not graduated from any University by taking regular course of study. He has, no doubt, secured post graduation (M. A. in Kannada) by pursuing the correspondence course. The question is whether the qualification of M. A. in Kannada obtained by way of correspondence course would meet the prescribed qualification as per the rules.
9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the expression Degree of a Recognised University' cannot be construed to mean only a bachelor's degree but necessarily includes a post graduate degree. If at all that was the intention of the rule making authority to confine the requirement to only bachelor's degree, the expression 'holder of a bachelor's degree of a recognised University' would have been used and not 'a degree of a recognised University' is what is contended. He therefore contends that the petitioner who holds master's degree in kannada satisfies the requisite qualification. He further contends that the object of prescribing the knowledge of kannada is to ensure that the candidate should possesses the required proficiency in kannada language as the debates in the Karnataka Legislative Council takes place in Kannada language. Having due regard to this object, the petitioner who possesses post graduation in kannada could not have been excluded on the ground that he does not possess the requisite qualification. He submits that in fact the petitioner possesses higher qualification. It is to be stated, in this regard, that the rule making authority has in its wisdom prescribes the qualification viz., a degree of a recognised university with kannada as second language or as an optional subject.
A perusal of the qualification prescribed as per the rule would show that the candidate must be a holder of a degree of a recognised University with Kannada as second language or as an optional subject. Study of Kannada as second language or as an optional subject only arises in the case of Bachelor's degree. If it is a study of post graduate course in any subject, question of taking kannada as second language or as an optional subject does not arise. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the degree is not confined only to Bachelor's degree and if includes master's degree cannot be accepted. The degree course wherein several subjects are studied with kannada as optional or second language would meet the requirement of the requisite knowledge in different subjects including the knowledge of Kannada as a language is what is the intention of the rule making authority. It cannot be said that the candidate who has secured M.A. in Kannada by taking correspondence course or by obtaining the degree from an Open University also qualifies the requirement prescribed for the reason only that he possesses knowledge in Kannada. Knowledge in Kannada language is not the exclusive criteria that is prescribed. The prescription clearly shows that he must be a holder of degree along with which he should have studied Kannada as second language or as an optional subject. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in K. Narasimha Murthy and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors.(SUPRA) wherein the candidate possessing master's degree in Kannada from the correspondence course of Mysore University without taking a bachelor's degree was held to be eligible to appear for the KPSC examination is not apposite to the facts of the present case. The question that arose in the said case was whether a candidate possessing a master's degree in a correspondence course without having a bachelor's degree could be held to be ineligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Gazetted probationer. This Court has held that merely because the candidate possessed the bachelor's degree or a master's degree he would not automatically be selected as a Gazetted probationer. The marks secured in the said examination had no relevance for making selection on merits. Ultimately, the candidate had to write the examination as per the Scheme of the examination prescribed and establish his merit for being considered for appointment to the post of Gazetted Probationer-Groups-A and B. In those circumstances, the academic qualification prescribed stating that the candidate must possess bachelor's degree was held to include the higher qualification of master's degree. The facts in the present case and the rules framed have nothing in common with the case referred to herein above. The present Rule is very clear in prescribing the academic qualification. There is no other test conducted for finding out the eligibility or merit of the candidate. It is based on the qualification possessed as prescribed in the rules that the candidate has to be selected and promoted. This is not a case where the person has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty and that such qualification certainly presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. When a qualification is set out under the relevant rules the same cannot be whittled down and different qualification cannot be introduced or adopted. Post graduation in Kannada as a correspondence course cannot be construed to presuppose acquisition of the bachelor's degree with kannada as second language or as an optional language. The petitioner herein has got a pass in SSLC. He has not secured bachelor's degree. He has not studied the course. He has only secured Master's degree in kannada by way of correspondence course from the Open University. Therefore, the presumption that the higher qualification of Master's degree shall be construed to include acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post cannot be extended to the facts of the instant case. In the case of K.K. Jyothi and Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (Supra) on which reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner, the required qualification was diploma in Electrical Engineering for the post of Sub-Engineer. The qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering was held to presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification in Diploma and was held to be sufficient for that post. The said ruling has no application to the facts of the present case. A careful consideration of the requirement of the rule would make it clear that mere degree granted under the correspondence course of Open University though termed as Master's degree is not the degree contemplated, as the later portion of the rule mandates that the acquisition of such degree shall be coupled with kannada as a second language or as an optional subject. Therefore, the later portion of the rule clearly and specifically excludes any interpretation which would enable a candidate possessing Master's degree in Kannada obtained in a correspondence course, without having bachelor's degree as one to be included in the Rule. It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that a construction that renders ineffective any portion of the statute shall not be preferred.
10. Counsel for the respondent is right in contending that unless the candidate possesses the minimum qualification prescribed for the post he cannot be found eligible for consideration. The decision rendered in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. N. C. Hugar (Supra) holding that the candidate must possess minimum qualification prescribed for the post and if in addition to the minimum qualification prescribed for the post if the candidate possesses any further or higher qualification he shall not be ineligibale for the post for that reason does not apply to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, the petitioner fails to satisfy the minimum qualification prescribed. The power to prescribe the qualification is vested with the Rule making authority. The Court may not embark upon an investigation of the question as to whether the qualification possessed by the candidate is higher than the prescribed qualification and hence sufficient, unless it can be shown that the possession of higher qualification presupposes possessing the prescribed qualification without anything more. It is also not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in the statutes as being inapposite if they can have appropriate application in the circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statutes. In the ,instant case, the requirement of degree coupled with the requisite prescription that the candidates should have studied kannada as an optional or as second language cannot be ignored and the words used in the Rule cannot be brushed aside to come to a conclusion that degree means either the bachelors degree or the post graduation, unmindful of the requirement that the degree to be possessed shall be with kannada as second or optional language which cannot be satisfied by (obtaining master's degree) doing a correspondence course in the Open University without having the basic bachelor's degree. Hence, securing post graduation without undergoing the academic curriculum prescribed for the bachelor's degree cannot, in the instant case meet the requirement of the Rule. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention urged by the petitioner.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought. Petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.