Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Miss. Laxmi Bedi on 1 June, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
WRIT PETITION NO.35274 OF 2019(S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
(TECHNICAL EDUCATION),
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
GULBARGA - 585 102
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)
2
AND:
MISS. LAXMI BEDI,
D/O. HANUMANTHRAO,
SHAMRAO BEEDI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PART TIME LECTURER,
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS,
& COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING,
GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
GULBARGA - 585102
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.J.ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.4614/2011
BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
P.N.DESAI J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has preferred this petition for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Application No.4614/2011 by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru(hereinafter for short referred as 'tribunal') wherein the application filed by the respondent is allowed and the Government notification bearing No.ED 81 DTE 3 2007(Bhaga-2) came to be quashed, which is now assailed by the State in this writ petition.
2. It is stated that the respondent was appointed as a part time lecturer in the Telecommunication Engineering Department by the third petitioner- Government Polytechnic College, Gulbarga from 10.08.1993 to 31.03.1994 and subsequently, the Telecommunication Department was renamed as Electronics and Communication Engineering. The appointment of applicant/respondent and others was approved by petitioner No.2. Thereafter also, the respondent was appointed as a part time lecturer by the third respondent from 26.12.1995 to 16.11.2004 on a monthly honorarium which was revised from time to time. Subsequently, the Government vide notification dated 14.02.2005 framed the special Rules named Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption Of Persons Working as Part-Time Lecturers and Part-Time Assistant Lecturers in the Karnataka Education Department Services) (Department Of Technical Education) (Special) Rules, 2004 (for short hereinafter referred as 'Special Rules, 2004'), in the 4 respective scale of pay as an one time measure, subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the said Rules. Accordingly, the respondent alongwith seven others were absorbed into the government service in the respective cadres as per absorption order dated 24.06.2008. But surprisingly, the 1st respondent cancelled the absorption order by a notification bearing No.ED 81 DTE 2007 dated 09.02.2009 stating the respondent has not fulfilled the conditions as laid down in the Special Rules dated 14.02.2005. The same was challenged by the respondent before the tribunal in Application No.4614/2011. The petitioners-State filed detailed statement of objections and opposed the claim of the respondent. The tribunal after considering final contentions allowed the application which is under challenge in this petition.
3. Heard Sri. B. Rajendraprasad, learned HCGP for the petitioners-State and Sri. H.J. Ananda, learned counsel for respondent.
5
4. Learned HCGP for the petitioners-State submitted that the respondent though was appointed as a lecturer in Telecommunication Department, as the respondent had not fulfilled the requisite Degree as a condition for absorption stipulated under Special Rules, the appointment of the respondent was cancelled in the year 2009. It is submitted by learned HCGP that under the Special rules, the part-time lecturer or part-time Assistant lecturer should possess requisite qualifications prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education or prescribed in the Karnataka Education Department Services (Technical Education Degree)(Recruitment) Rules, 1987.
5. The learned counsel for respondent contended that the respondent had 15 years experience in teaching and infact she was teaching the subject of Electronics and Communication Engineering and she is holder of B.E(Instrumentation Technology) degree with First Class and subsequently she has completed M.Tech course and was conferred M.Tech Degree in Power Electronics also. The respondent is qualified as per 6 absorption rules and that without giving any notice, she was terminated, and supports the impugned order of tribunal.
6. The contention of learned HCGP does not hold good in view of the material placed before the Court and also reasoning given by the tribunal.
7. Admittedly, the respondent has obtained Bachelor Degree in Instrumentation Technology in First Class. It is also stated that the respondent has obtained Master's Degree also. It is also evident that the respondent was working as a part time lecturer in Telecommunication Engineering Department in Government Polytechnic College, Gulbarga and it was subsequently renamed as Electronics and Communication Engineering Department. The appointment of respondent and others was approved by respondent No.2. Again the respondent was appointed as part time lecturer continuously by the third petitioner college till her absorption. The pay scale was fixed as per AICTE scale.
7
8. The absorption rules shows that as a one time measure, Special Rules were framed to absorb the part time lecturers. There is nothing to show that the said Bachelor degree obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent and contrary to the requisite qualification prescribed by All India Council of Technical Education. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced marks card/certificate from the said college, wherein subjects are practically similar for Electronics and Communication Engineering and also Instrumentation Technology. Learned counsel for respondent has produced the clarification from AICTE before this Court which was issued on 18.08.2017 which is at Annexure-R5 and in the said notification, it is stated that the incumbent faculty recruited in the past based on their qualification acquired will continue to be eligible in the department they were recruited to.
9. Further in the Annexure- R5, it mentions the names of major disciplines of Engineering/technology, corresponding course(s) of Engineering/Technology, Relevant/appropriate nomenclature of Under-Graduate Degree in 8 Engineering/Technology and of Post-Graduate degree wherein Electronics and Communication Engineering is equivalent to Electronics Communication and Instrumentation Engineering Telecommunication Engineering. Therefore, as per the above regulations, the Electronics Engineering/Technology is the major disciplines of Engineering/Technology. Electronic Engineering, Electronics and Communication Engineering, Instrumentation Engineering, Mechatronics Engineering, Medical Electronics are the corresponding courses of Engineering/Technology. Electronics Communication and Instrumentation Engineering are some of the relevant/appropriate nomenclature of Under graduate decree in Engineering/Technology. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent has obtained degree in B.E. degree(Instrumentation Technology) with First Class which is appropriate qualification for her absorption. The notification issued by the State Government removing the Applicant as is illegal, the stand of the Government is contrary to the 9 regulations framed by All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi.
10. It is to be noted that the respondent is employed as a lecturer in Government Polytechnic College, Gulbarga. Respondent was teaching in Telecommunication Engineering Department for a long period which was subsequently renamed as Electronics and Communication Engineering. Respondent has got 12 years experience in teaching telecommunication engineering subject. The action of the Government cancelling the absorption order of respondent without even considering her say is illegal.
11. The tribunal has rightly discussed all the points and has rightly held that the degree in B.E.(Instrumentation Technology) is not totally alien to BE (Tele Communication). It is rightly observed that subjects covered therein are common.
12. It is also stated that the respondent is aged about 52 years. Without considering all these aspects and without there being any material to show that the said degree is not 10 equivalent to the degree possessed by the respondent which is the prescribed qualification, the cancellation of absorption order of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary which is rightly set-aside by the tribunal.
11. We find no error or illegality in the order passed by the tribunal.
Accordingly, we pass the following:-
ORDER Petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-