Karnataka High Court
Nagesh Annigeri S/O Yallappa Annigeri vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2013 (4) AKR 364
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.63218/2012 [S-RES]
BETWEEN:
NAGESH ANNIGERI S/O YALLAPPA ANNIGERI
AGE: 42 YRS, TEACHING ASSISTANT,
KARNATAKA CIRCLE, DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI ADV.
FOR SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT(HIGHER),
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
DHARWAD, DHARWAD DIST.
5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
DHARWAD
:2:
6. THE KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD,
REP. BY REGISTRAR
7. THE PRINCIPAL, KARNATAKA ARTS COLLEGE,
DHARWAD
8. THE PRINCIPAL, KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE
DHARWAD
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-G DTD.10.03.2012.
B. DIRECTION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AS
PASSED IN WP NO.63264-78/2009 AND
WP NO.63940/2011.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the endorsement issued by Respondent No.6 on 10.03.2012 vide Annexure 'G' and for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. :3:
2. The contentions of the petitioner are that he passed M.Sc. in Mathematics from Karnatak University, Dharwad, in the year 1996 securing 65.30% and M.Phil. from the same University in the year 2001; that he was appointed as a guest lecturer in the Department of Mathematics in Karnatak Arts College, Dharwad, affiliated to Karnatak University and continued as such till today, and thus, he has completed more than eleven years of service; that, his services were not regularised inspite of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMA DEVI AND OTEHRS [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. Therefore, on 13.02.2011, he submitted a representation to the Registrar of Karnatak University, Dharwad, for seeking regularisation of his services as lecturer. When the said representation was not considered, he approached this Court in a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his :4: representation. This Court, considering the writ petition filed by the petitioner and similarly placed persons, by order dated 25.02.2011 in W.P. No.63264-278/2009 and connected matters, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in UMA DEVI'S case referred to supra and also the clarification made by the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS [(2010) 9 SCC 247] directed the authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioners therein and pass appropriate orders.
3. It is further contended that pursuant to the said directions, the University without applying its mind, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and similarly placed persons, on the ground that he was not duly qualified on the day when he entered into the service. The said endorsement / communication issued to the petitioner was questioned before this Court in W.P. :5: No.63939/2011 and connected matters, which came to be allowed by order dated 02.01.2012, directing the authorities to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred cases. Thereafter, on consideration of representation, the University issued a communication as per Annexure 'G' stating that the petitioner was not duly qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer on the date of alleged appointment and that he has not completed ten years of service as held in the decision in UMA DEVI's case. Therefore, he is not entitled to be regularised. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the petition as well as documents.
:6:
5. Ofcourse, from the documents produced by the petitioner, it is noticed that he appears to have been worked as a guest lecturer in the Department of Mathematics in Karnatak Arts College, Dharwad, affiliated to Karnatak University from the academic year 2000-01. As noticed, the services of the petitioner was only as a guest lecturer and not even as a temporary lecturer. Even according to the marks-card produced by the petitioner, at Annexure 'A4', he has passed M.Phil Part-II during the examination held in March 2001. Except producing the marks card of M.Phil Part-II, the petitioner has not produced the degree certificate issued by the University to show as to when he acquired M.Phil. degree which is a necessary qualification for being appointed as a lecturer. If according to the petitioner, he was appointed as a guest lecturer during the academic year 2000-01, from his own showing, the petitioner had not acquired the requisite :7: qualification for being appointed as a lecturer at the time of his initial appointment as a guest lecturer during the academic year 2000-01. One of the condition laid down in UMA DEVI's case and M.L. KESARI's case, referred to supra, at the time of initial appointment, person so appointed should be qualified and eligible. The second condition is that he should have completed ten years of continuous service. In the case on hand, even according to the petitioner, he was appointed during the academic year 2000-01 and he said to have passed M.Phil. during March-2001. Therefore, the period of ten years get completed during the academic year 2011-12. However, when the representation was made on 13.02.2011, he had not completed 10 years of service from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the University is justified in holding that the petitioner is not :8: entitled for regularisation into service. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the decision of the University holding that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularised. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-