Karnataka High Court
Dr R N Kadam vs State Of Karnataka on 6 September, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6" DAY OF SEPTEMBER; 3010 _
BEPORE woe
THE HON BLE MR_JUSTICE EP MORAN SH. ANT AN, AG Ou! 2 AR |
WRIT PETITION No. 3598 /2008 (S-RES)
EO TW EIEN:
DR. RN RADAM,
S/O. NAMADEY .
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: LECTURER
DEPT. OF ECONO! MCS
LSS, COLLEGE, os
DHARWAD,
R/O. SRI, MAN JUS LAT EP, LKRIPA,
JALADARSHINI LAY SUT
RADHAKRISHNA e NAGAR oa
DHARWAD-OL > ne _ PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR.-ADV)
TE OF KARNAT
DEPARTMENT OF ppuca: TION
| {UNIVERSI™ ES),
_ M.S-BUILDING
_ BANGALORE SOT.
2. KARNATAL. A UNPVERST?T
D MAT
et
Sept pried tom
_REGISTRA sR
tc ri ae Lage A LTEn rar
SO ORL PM. HONARKERE
PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
DHARWAL
PAVATE NAG. ee
DHARWAD 7 ESPONI DENTS
(BY SRI PLH. GOTKHINDI, HCGP.. POR Ree] ..
SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE,, ADV, FOR ke?
PRAKASH 8. UDIKERI FOR R-3 ,
THIS PETITION IS FILED NAER A TICL ES 226.4ND 297 OF.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO. QUASH THE
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 83 ISURD BY THE
R ESPONDE NT UNIVERSITY DATE T22.12.2007 VIDE-ANNEXURE_A
S ILLEGAL ETC. er
PRELIMINARY HEARING --
PGLLOWING:
THIS PETITION COMING.
B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COUP? MADE TH
i. The ; petitioner - has, | questioned the selection and
appomn trnent of oe Fespondent to the post of Professor in the
Depart nent, of eon émics® in 4 the 2" respondent University.
The ene onder issued in favour of 3 respondent is p rod ie anexure-é A and is Gated 22.12.9007. Phe same is called in que stion in this writ petition.
"2, I. iS.argued on behalf of the petitioner that though the petiuener is the only candidate elj igible who applied for the pest _ of Department of Economics under the Scheduled Caste Rural . Category he is not selected: that the 374 res spondent though was Lyd not @ rural candidate and though did not fall under the rural category was selected to the post meant for rural cate the 28¢ respondent University is not fustified in jenering he. \ j gnGring candidature of the petitioner, as he has got-five 'y teaching experience at postgraduate ~ level, "chat ~ the"
respondent has completely y ignored the provisions of the Article 335 (Proviso) of the Constitution of India, wherein relaxation is permissible for the car nilidates 'belonging to Scheduled Caste, itis further a rgued that the. ana opine nea is net meant for rura justihed in Filing ™P the post of Pro candidate c oaverting the Si ALE for a n on- rural candidate. Eke is "Bein ted 7 out by the learned advocate for the petilioner.. that Kan pada, 'version of the notification vide beet Annex we-B did aot contain any provision fo filling up the .3 unfit ict i pe ricular category of the candidates ligible candidate of other categories. He points out to Hi
-bysotner ¢ the. Kannada version as well as the English version of the advertisernent calling fer applications. He further a scued than tO have been provided in _felaxation BEM AP me y S23 Gf Cornstilution of India read with the notification dated 21.5.1976 issued by the State Government.
3. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of responde VES 2 anc 3 that the petitioner was not eligible candidate for the post of Professor of Economics, masimueh as he rid rok have required, qualification of ten years of teac chi ne experien 268 at the post graduate level and that. ne has-not publishes ten research papers in reputed journals: of high impac factor, on the other hand, the Sr Fespo ide ont. who ae as having ten years of teaching experience al "Posi 'Grad fate level and had published ten research papera ire puted journals of high impact factor was considered anid appointe a; Mh ug 1, the post was to be filled by Caste rural category, the 3rd the candidate of 'Schedule :
respondent was appointed to the said post. who belongs to the eaot ad + a meg « scnecdulea Cas since none of the candidates were available from.ru ira! quota' te' be appointed for the said post.
4. The notification at Annexure-B is in Kannada language. Vhe'same is published in local newspaper. The last portion of ine said notification clearly reveals that for the experience and procedure for appointment and for other 4 ¥ conditions, the candidates were required to look io. the Notice went ae) Board of the Universiry or the website ww kucClernetan. The:
copy of the advertisement pu iblished doin the suid website Lis. produced at Annexure-5 at page 1 o to the writ pet don. 4 he advertisement as published in "ihe website dated 287. 2007 clearly reveals that if the candidates ue me ie for the vacant post reserved for respective cave ory then VACANCIES are to be filled by other elig gible candida tes "of «{ Said "categories It is not in dispute thar the posts were called fer filling up the posts only from Sei reduiied a Caste 'anid Sehe d uled Tribe candidates' i.e. to fll up the'backdog vacdiacies. The petiuoner as well as the 3 respondent are 'from scheduled caste cat egory. The said fact is not in dispute, The Setitioner falls under the scheduled "caste fural category: The petitioner was the only candidate WhO applies forthe post of Professor of Department of Be conom CS | lor scheduled caste rural category. The
-responcent being a scheduled caste candidate -
tbe said post. The 2nd responcent-University has rightly informed the petitioner that as he did not have the requisite 6 teaching experience of ten vears at post graduate level, they appointed an alternative candidate viz., the 3 respor denis AS the appointment of 3° respondent was bad in the eve o Same was permissible. It cannot be s:iic trat the. vflonww The qualification for the post of Profe ssor re cads thi uss "An eminent scholar with yu Ibished : wit rk of high ae a Fat quality actively engaged. | FeSee: ch with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teach hin Roane l/or experience in research + , the Universityy Nationiv! Level Institutions includiny € -qperie nee ¢ f guiding research at doctoral level. OR AR outstancing seholei "with established reputation who has th ade signifie art sontribution to knowledge. _AN EMINENT SCHOLAR MEANS:
_ These holding degree from premier ' Hermationally recognized uistitutions/ with at least 10 research papers in reputed journals of high impact factor and whose contributions are L s ow kveil recognized/ acknowledged by way of prestigious Ff scholarships/ fellawships, research grants, awards and prizes given. at national/ international levels ong el &, From the above, it is clear at ten years of SUTVICE experience in postgraduate teaching or CAPELIE Fee in ze Search at the University/National level institution is a rust for the, eminent scholar being appoir nted "Ch aba a Py rofessor. y /hereas, such. teaching experience is- Mot ribicegeat., for att Sutstanding scholar. The word wien scholar" ~is also defined as mentioned therein which "means* that fae eminent scholar means and includes.the persen whe has published at least te years research papers. ite reputed iourna and whose contvbutions are well recognised by way of prod ucing echolarshipy/ fellowships, a research grants awards and prizes given a tthe National /international level, "it is argied on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner is an olits stant ding "scholar and therefore, the minimum teachi ne req sivemefit-ot ten years of post graduate level is unnecessary insofar as-the petitioner is concerned. i. Statement of objections is filed by the University. reveals that the application of the petitioner is re jee ted Ae did not have ten vears of teaching experience.-i which. meds hat the University has come to the coriclision that the a fae ca petitioner does not fall under the category.of outstanding scholar so also, the 3 respondent. Whether a person. iS a outstanding scholar or not is to be decided by the experts in the Held i.e. the selection, duthorities..'This Court does not act as appellate authority in such. ratiers so as-fo impose its own view. [tis for che % xperts i the field to decide as to who is the eye outstanding scholar. Since in the field have decided. tl rat ne either of ae 1€ 6 pe tHTO Yn ner nor the 3 respondent are the outstanding schelats,. "this Court will mot substitute its view in the Metter, "Such a view arrived by the experts m the field is to. be respected to the Court. Thus, the only alternative the petitioner is an eminent scholar with foe in post graduate teaching or not. He ublished at least ten research papers in reputed igh impact factor. Admittedly, the petitioner has fond "published six research papers and four books, According te eos ale we \ Aw the respondents the same would not satisfy the requirement of ten research papers.
8. Be that as it may, even assuming that if the books published by the petitioner are treated as research 'papers he cannot be said to be an el igible le candidate tor appoinim en tas a, professor in view of lack of 10.: years teaching experience at postgraduate level, Ae coulgnes seen from hrs Bio-Data furnished before the Co urt, Ae has 2 years of experience as a counselor a 'Postgraduate, level There is nothing on record to shaw. that counseling: is equivalent to teaching a postgraduate level-.Even assuming. that the counseling also is equivalent to teach g OF synonymous to teaching, the same would not: fulfil the -reeuirement of notification. The notification require 8 ten years of experience in postgraduate of experience teacning. Yre.3' respondent has got iversity whereas the (petition er did not have. Therefore, the | autherities not select the petitioner but have selected the 34 respondent as an alternative candidate.
ris Nie! lt is no doubt true that under 335 of Const; tution at India anc the notifications issued by the State Governrhent irom time to time, the appointing authorities are given option to', give relaxation in respect of ;
qualifying marks or standards of eva! the matier on hand no relaxation "is provided. u nder the. notification. It is ne Coubtt rue the: the relaxation could have been provided. Burt in th © é ---- of rach relaxation provided, the selecting authorities ce and consequently, have not given any relaxation, Moreover, thé se iec ction is entirely for scheduled caste» and Scheduled ; tribe candidates only. The srefore, 'there. cannot, be AIry further relaxation in such selections. Be that agit ma, only if, the provision is made for relaxation i eeaitng re or lowering the standards of evaluation, the Selecting authorit ties/appointing authorities can relax.to.the said extent. Since no relaxation is the -selectionfrocess in question, the petitioner cz vany relaxation. The sclecting authorities cannot suc motto
-brovided relaxation in the absence of provision relating to in the notification. In view of the saine, this