Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr. H.B. Jalajakshi on 4 January, 2018
Bench: S.Sujatha, John Michael Cunha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
W.A. NO.100663/2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-01
3. THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-01.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, AGA)
AND :
DR. H.B. JALAJAKSHI
W/O. DEVAPPA HOSUR,
AGE:47 YEARS,
LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY,
VEERASAIVA COLLEGE,
BELLARY-583103.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI : MRUTYUNJAYA S HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
:2:
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO SECURE THE RECORDS IN W.P. NO.67183/2011,
AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 08.03.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.67183/2011 (S-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an intra court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.03.2017 in W.P. No.67183/2011.
2. Marshalling of the facts is necessary for better appreciation of the case. As such we find it appropriate to traverse through the facts.
3. The respondent was appointed as lecturer in sociology on 31.07.1993 and reported to duty on 02.08.1993 in Veerashaiva College, Ballari. The respondent's proposal for approval of grant-in-aid came to be rejected which was challenged in W.P. NO.21811/2001 and this Court by its order dated 28.06.2001 directed the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was filed and the :3: same came to be rejected. The said rejection order was challenged in W.P. No.31444/2003 which came to be allowed on 28.06.2006 directing the appellants to consider the approval of appointment of the respondent and to award consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks. However, appellant No.2 issued an order dated 24.05.2007 bringing the respondent for salary grant with effect from 22.05.2007. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred C.C.C. No.67/2007. In the said proceedings, a corrigendum was issued as per Annexure-D to the writ petition whereby the order dated 24.05.2007 was modified, granting approval of the appointment of the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993 to the post of lecturer in Veerashaiva College, Ballari. In view of the same, contempt proceedings were dropped with liberty to the respondent to work out her grievance of consequential monetary benefits on the basis of approval by initiating appropriate proceedings, if she so aggrieved. The consequential benefits not being awarded, respondent filed C.C.C. NO.652/2010. During the said proceedings, Government order dated 25.06.2010 was issued. Considering the same, contempt proceedings were dropped with liberty to the respondent to question the :4: correctness of the order dated 25.06.2010. Pursuant to the said order of 25.06.2010, an order dated 25.10.2010 as per Annexure-H was passed by the appellant No.3. Accordingly, respondent challenged Annexures-G and H in W.P. NO.67183/2011. The learned Single Judge, after considering and analyzing the material on record, disposed of the writ petition directing the appellants to pay all consequential benefits as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P. NO.31444/2003. The learned Single Judge directed to comply the order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The same being not complied with, the respondent was constrained to file C.C.C. NO.100202/2017 before this Court alleging wilful disobedience of the order of learned Single Judge in W.P. No.67183/2011. During the said proceedings, after issuance of notice to the appellants, the instant writ appeal is filed.
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that in terms of the Government order dated 21.06.1995, the UGC notified the qualifications required for a person to be appointed as a teaching staff of :5: Universities and Institutions. A proviso was inserted to 1991 UGC Regulations, whereby those candidates who have submitted Ph.D. thesis of M.Phil. examination by 31.12.2002 were exempted from passing NET/SLET. In terms of minimum qualification required for the appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it, in terms of Regulations 2000, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of lecturer was 55% marks at Master's level and passing NET/SLET with exemption from passing said examination to those who have completed M.Phil. degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in concerned subject upto 31.12.2002. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed her Ph.D. degree in the year 2003 and as such she was not qualified for the UGC pay scale since 02.08.1993 i.e., date of appointment. It is submitted that the corrigendum dated 02.06.2007 was issued only to approve the appointment of the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993 with the State pay scale and not UGC pay scale by fixing the notional pay scale. The learned Single Judge mis-interpreted the same as fixation of UGC pay scale from 02.08.1993 and proceeded to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to pay all consequential :6: benefits as per the directions issued by this Court. It is submitted that the respondent not being a qualified candidate, payment of UGC pay scale does not arise and the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is a burden on the State exchequer. Any submissions or concessions made by the Government Advocate/Government Pleader before the Court is not binding on the State Government. Even though the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants had made a submission before the learned Single Judge that the appellants would issue necessary direction to comply the order of extending UGC pay scale to the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993, that itself would not be a ground for the respondent to claim the benefit of UGC pay scale with effect from 02.08.1993.
5. According to the learned counsel, at no point of time any assurance was given to the respondent to extend the benefit of UGC pay scale from the appellants.
6. Learned counsel Sri Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri appearing for the respondent would submit that at the first instance, in the contempt proceedings i.e., C.C.C. No.67/2007, corrigendum was issued vide order dated :7: 02.06.2007 rectifying the date of approval of the appointment of the respondent with effect from 02.08.1993 by filing an affidavit before this Court. On such submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants for extending the UGC pay scale with effect from 02.08.1993, the contempt proceedings were dropped with liberty to the respondent to work out the consequential benefits on the basis of approval by initiating appropriate proceedings. Similarly in the second contempt i.e., C.C.C. NO.652/2010 during the contempt proceedings, again an order dated 25.06.2010 was issued to overcome the contempt proceedings. In the proceedings before the learned Single Judge challenging the Government order dated 25.06.2010, a categorical Undertaking was given before the Court that the case of the respondent would be considered seriously and the appellants would issue necessary directions to comply the order. The same having not been done, having no other option, respondent filed C.C.C. No.100202/2017 before this Court. Surprisingly, in the said proceedings the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellants have taken a decision to file writ appeal before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. :8: No.67183/2011. In the said contempt proceedings also, learned Government Advocate who appeared for the appellants herein, had undertaken to withdraw the writ appeal and shall comply the order of the learned Single Judge. But the same having not been done, the appellant proceeded to argue the matter. The conduct of the appellant through out these proceedings envisages that the appellant in order to escape the contempt proceedings is issuing Government orders and finally writ appeal is filed which is totally misconceived and misplaced. No valid grounds are urged by the appellants to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. It is further contended that the main ground for rejecting the UGC pay scale with effect from 02.08.1993 and approving the same with effect from 24.05.2007 is that the respondent has not submitted Ph.D. thesis on or before 31.12.2002. Learned counsel drawing our attention to the memo filed before the writ Court contends that the respondent had submitted her thesis before 31.12.2002 and the same has been considered by the learned Single Judge in :9: allowing the writ petition. Further it is contended that as per the notification issued by the University Grants Commission dated 31.07.2002, the candidates who have completed M.Phil. degree by 31.12.2002 or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concerned subject on or before 31.12.2002 are exempted from appearing in the NET/SLET examination. Applying the same, the respondent is entitled to UGC pay scale with effect from 02.08.1993. Thus, he seeks for dismissal of writ appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that in first contempt proceedings in C.C.C. NO.67/2007, corrigendum order dated 02.06.2007 was placed before this Court rectifying the date of approval of appointment of the respondent to the post to which she was appointed with effect from 02.08.1993. The conduct of the appellants shows that it is only in order to escape the contempt proceedings the said order was placed on record before the contempt Court. But the same not being implemented, second contempt was filed by the respondent seeking for consequential benefits. All these issues cropped : 10 : up owing to the inaction of the appellants in not complying the order of this Court in W.P. No.31444/2003 dated 28.06.2006, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court after elaborately analyzing the material on record, allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to consider the proposal for approval of the appointment for grant-in-aid and for all consequential benefits therein within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The same has reached finality. In terms of the said order, the appellants ought to have taken action for approval of the appointment of respondent in grant-in-aid. Again during the contempt proceedings in C.C.C. No.100202/2017 in order to come out of the clutches of the contempt, for not complying the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.67183/2011, the present writ appeal is filed with a delay of 179 days. No satisfactory explanation is offered by the appellants to condone the said delay.
9. Be that as it may, we are concerned with the conduct of the appellants in making false Undertakings before this Court making assurance that the Court orders shall be complied with and thereafter turning around and : 11 : challenging the order of the learned Single Judge which is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Now the appellants are before this Court, on technicalities, contending that at no point of time in none of the orders UGC pay scale was fixed. It is the order dated 25.06.2010 which was passed and issued during the second contempt proceedings which is under challenge, wherein the approval of appointment of the respondent for UGC pay scale is made with effect from 24.05.2007. As aforesaid, it is only for the reason that no thesis was submitted by the respondent on or before 31.12.2002, the UGC pay scale is denied with effect from 02.08.1993. The same having been submitted on 31.12.2002 as could be discerned from the records, the ground of filing the writ appeal has to be negated. Even otherwise, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent as per the Notification dated 31.07.2002 the respondent having submitted the Ph.D. thesis on or before 31.12.2002 is exempted from appearing for the NET examination and thus she is entitled for UGC pay scale. Circular dated 19.02.1994 at Annexure-B to the writ petition also reflects the same. The minimum educational qualification for Master's degree with atleast 55% marks : 12 : prescribed under the Government order dated 08.02.1994 is not applicable to the candidates who were appointed between 30.03.1990 and 07.02.1994.
10. Considering these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the impugned action of the appellants is contumacious. It is when the writ court proceeded to initiate action under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the UGC pay scales shall be extended with effect from 02.08.1993, initiation of contempt was not resorted to. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that it is only to avoid the contempt proceedings this writ appeal is filed albeit an Undertaking given before this Court in the present contempt proceedings to withdraw the writ appeal. The same is not acted upon. The grounds urged and the inaction on the part of the appellants in not obeying the orders of this Court would be nothing but contumacious. However, we are not inclined to initiate any contempt proceedings against the appellants with a fond hope that the orders of this Court, as narrated above, shall : 13 : be complied forthwith. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
As such, consideration of I.A. No.1/2017 for condonation of delay does not arise, accordingly stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending I.As. are consigned to file.
(Sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE hnm