Karnataka High Court
Dr Vishwanatha S/O Sri Mallegowda vs University Of Mysore on 24 September, 2019
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.11556/2007 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR.VISHWANATHA
S/O SRI.MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS SELECTION
GRADE LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA,
FINE ARTS COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, UNIVERSITY
OF MYSORE, MANASA GANGOTRI, MYSORE- 575 006,
R/AT.1257, PADUVANA ROAD, 4TH CROSS,
T.K.LAY OUT,4TH STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR.
MYSORE - 570 023 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
M/S SUBBA RAO & CO.,)
AND:
1. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REPTD. BY THE REGISTRAR,
MYSORE - 575 005.
2. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT
REPTD. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE
CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
MYSORE.
3. DR.M.G.MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
2
PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA,
POST GRADUATION CENTER, HASSAN,
HEMA GANGOTRI,B.M.ROAD,
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE.
4. (DR.)SRI.R.VENKATESHAN (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN)
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS SENIOR SCALE LECTURER,
DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA, LITERATURE STUDIES
KANNADA UNIVERSITY,
HAMPI - 583 276. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.T.MOHAN, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI.T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI.S.M.BABU, ADV. FOR R3;
R-4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT
APPOINTING HIM AS PROFESSOR IN KANNADA DT.18.04.2007
VIDE ANNEX.K. AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14
AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BESIDES VIOLATIVE
OF THE NORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE UGC NOTIFICATION
AND ETC.,.
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:
3
ORDER
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of the 3rd Respondent to the post of Professor in Kannada. The post of Kannada Professor was reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC Category. No post was reserved for General Merit Candidate. The Petitioner was eligible and qualified for the post of Kannada Professor. The post has been de-reserved and converted to General Merit category without any justification and with a sole intention to appoint the 3rd Respondent. As per the UGC norms, the candidates for the post of Professor should possess Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work. Petitioner is a Gold Medalist in Post Graduation (MA. in Kannada). The 3rd Respondent does not have any published work to his credit.
2. The 3rd Respondent has filed statement of objections contending that, while preparing the Seniority List, the Bangalore University had not taken into consideration services rendered by him as Lecturer from 04.07.1996. The same was rectified by order dated 22.02.2005, counting the service 4 rendered by him from 04.07.1996 to 03.09.1998. The 3rd Respondent not only possessed qualification prescribed under the UGC norms but he has also published several publications, she has earned the award of Gautama Prashasti Puraskara of 2005, issued by Rangotri Makkala Ranga Shale (Regd.). The Board of Appointment has considered all the eligible candidates and selected the most eligible among the qualified persons. This Respondent did possess, the teaching experience of 10 years at the Post Graduate level. This Respondent having applied under reserved category of Group-3A, there is no question of de- reservation as contended by the Petitioner. The Petitioner as also his wife are Class-I Gazetted Officers, therefore, they cannot claim reservation under Group-3B Category.
3. The 1st Respondent in its Statement of Objections stated that, the 3rd Respondent fulfilled all the requirements to appoint as Professor in Kannada and the Board of Appointment after considering the qualification, merit, performance etc., selected the 3rd Respondent as a suitable candidate. As per UGC norms, the Doctorate Degree is not insisted upon for the post of 5 Professor and hence, the contention that, the candidate should possess a Doctorate Degree is not correct. However, the 3rd Respondent has Doctorate Degree and has obtained 68.10% marks at Master's Degree level, in addition to two years of Under Graduate and 12 years of Post Graduate Teaching Experience, in addition to this, the 3rd Respondent has 12 years of Research Experience. Comparatively, the 3rd Respondent was found to be more meritorious and got selected. Therefore, it is not for this court to substitute its views in the matter of selection of suitable candidates.
3. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the writ papers.
4. The main contention of the Petitioner is that, the 3rd Respondent did not have the eligibility to be appointed as Professor in Kannada. It is stated by the 3rd Respondent that, he has published 10 books and 70 Research Articles in the Journals and presented Research papers at National Levels and relied upon Annexure-'P' and Annexure-'R1' in this regard. Annexure- R2 discloses that respondent No.3 had more than 10 years of 6 teaching experience and research experience. The third respondent has worked as Junior Research Fellow as is evident from letter from Bengaluru University dated 2.9.2010. Thus it cannot be said that the third respondent did not possess the requisite qualification.
5. The third respondent contended that he sought for selection under category IIIA. The B O A took into consideration the certificate produced at Annexure-R3 and selected the third respondent to the post. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that appointment of the third respondent is violative of reservation rules is not correct. The third respondent has produced Ph.D certificate which shows that it has been issued in the year 2000.
6. Considering the entire materials, there is no merit in the writ petition. In a matter of this nature where subject experts were members of the Board of Appointment and they have made selection and it has been accepted by the Syndicate, there is no much scope left to the Court for interference in order to substitute its views.
7
7. Though the petitioner sought to strikedown clause S-5 of the statutes dated 9.1.2003 to the extent of prescribing 20 marks for the interview as the same prescribes excessive percentage (33.1/3%) of marks for interview, it is not substantiated by the petitioner in the synopsis submitted by him. On the other hand, the University of Mysore has stated in its written submissions that the said statute has been framed under Section 53(6) of KSU Act by the Syndicate of the University in exercise of the power under Section 541(1) of KSU Act and has been duly assented by the Chancellor as back as 7.1.2003 and as such there is no illegality in prescribing 20 marks for performance in the interview. It all depends upon the post for which the interview was prescribed. It is a post of professor in Kannada and candidates need to be interviewed to assess their knowledge in the subject. In the hands of such a lecturer, future of so many students lies and therefore selection and appointment of best suitable is an essential object. No flaw can be found in prescribing 20 marks for the interview. 8
Accordingly writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd