Karnataka High Court
Dr.K M Lokesh S/O Monnappa vs The Government Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2013
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
W.P.NOS.29055-56/2009(S-RES)
C/W
W.P.NO.40358/2011(S-PRO)
IN W.P.NOS.29055-56/2009(S-RES)
BETWEEN
1. DR.K M LOKESH
S/O MONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
READER, DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN
HISTORY, MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALAGANGOTHRI, KONAJE
MANGALORE-524199
2. DR B.UDAY, S/O MAHALINGA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
READER, DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN
HISTORY, MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALA GANGOTHRI, KONAJE
MANGALORE-524 199 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VISHNU HEGDE, ADV., FOR M/S M.T. NANAIAH
ASSOCIATES)
AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001
2
2. THE SECRETARY
UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSIONER
BAHADUR SHAS ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
3. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
REP BY THE REGISTRAR
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALA GANGOTHRI, KONAJE
MANGALORE-524 199
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
5. DR.HANUMA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
READER, DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES
IN HISTORY
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALAGANGOTHRI, KONAJE
MANGALORE-524 199 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI, ADDL. GA FOR R1 & 4, WP IS DISMISSED AGAINST R2, SRI P.S, RAJAGOPAL, SR. ADV., FOR M/S P.S. RAJAGOPAL ASSTS. FOR R3, SRI NARAYANA BHAT, ADV., FOR M/S SUBBA RAO & Co. FOR R5) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.24.3.07 ISSUED BY THE R3, i.e., ANN-A & WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY DIRECTING R3, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DT.10.7.09, & 14.7.09, i.e., ANN-B & C MADE BY THE PETITIIONES & ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRITS, ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS ETC., 3 IN W.P.NO.40358/2011(S-PRO) BETWEEN
1. DR. HANUMA NAYAKA S/O LATE PUTTA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN HISTORY MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTRI, KONAJE DAKSHINA KANNADA-574199 & R/A B-3, UNIVERSITY QUARTERS MANGALAGANGOTHRI, KONAJE D.K DIST-574199 ... PETITIONER (BY M/S SUBBARAO & CO) AND
1. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALA GANGOTHRI, KONAJE DAKSHINA KANNADA-574199 ... RESPONDENT (BY M/S P S RAJAGOPAL ASSTS) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.09.2011, MARKED AS ANNEXURE U, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC., THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
PC:
In W.P. Nos. 29055-56/2009 the petitioners seek the following relief:
"Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ by setting aside the impugned order dated 24/03/2007, issued by the 3rd respondent i.e., Annexure-'A' and Writ of Mandamus by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representations dated 10/07/2009 and 14/07/2009 i.e., Annexures- 'B' and 'C' made by the petitioners and issue such other Writs, Orders or Directions to the respondents as this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of the justice and equity."
2. These writ petitions are filed by Dr. K.N. Lokesh and Dr. B. Uday against the order dated 24.3.2007 issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of respondent no.5 - Dr. Hanuma Naik. By this order (dated 24.3.2007) respondent no.5 - Hanuma Naik was given benefit of Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 1.1.1996, taking into consideration his earlier service rendered in Pre-University College. Since the period of service by Dr. Hanuma Naik in Pre-University College was taken into consideration while 5 passing the order dated 24.3.2007, the petitioners (Dr. K.N. Lokesh and Dr. Uday) claim that they lost seniority over Dr. Hanuma Naik.
3. Respondent no.5 - Dr. Hanuma Naik has also filed W.P.40358/2011 challenging an endorsement dated 30.9.2011 (Annexure -U ) being illegal and violative of articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and also prayed for direction to the respondents to extend all benefits consequent upon quashing the above endorsement. He has also prayed for direction to the University to consider his case for promotion to the post of Professor in the Career Advancement Scheme with retrospective effect from the date on which it was due to him to meet the ends of justice. By the impugned endorsement dated 30.9.2011, it appears that the University stayed the process of promotion in view of pendency of the case in Court.
6
4. There is no dispute that when the order dated 24.3.2007 was passed by the 3rd respondent, viz. Mangalore University, the petitioners (Dr. K.M. Lokesh and Dr. U. Uday) were not party to the same nor were they heard before passing the said order. It is in this backdrop it was contended on their behalf that respondent no.5 - Dr. Hanuma Naik was shown senior to them and as a consequence thereof he will be considered for promotion before the petitioners. As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 - Hanuma Naik submitted that even if the period of service rendered by him in Pre- University College is excluded, still he would be entitled to be treated as senior to the petitioners.
5. The University has filed statement of objections in a writ petition filed by Dr. Hanuma Naik. Learned senior advocate appearing for the University invited my attention to the Annexures R-31, R-32, R-33, R-35 and R-36 and submitted that the service of Dr. Hanuma Naik rendered 7 by him in the Pre-University College was wrongly taken into consideration while passing the order dated 24.3.2007. He submitted that the Government of Karnataka vide its letter dated 25.4.2009 (Annexure R-31) directed them to re-consider the case of Dr. Hanuma Naik. The letter dated 25.4.2009 reads thus:
"Sub:- Reconsideration of 1986 UGC Rules as per 1996 UGC Rules in respect of Dr. Hanuma Naik.
With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that the entitlement for CAS had to be determined as per the rules prevalent at the time that benefit is due and the same cannot be regulated as per the regulations which were introduced subsequently on the ground that the same is more advantageous. Hence, University is informed that the decision suomotto taken by it in the precedent case of Sri Hanuma Naik is not in order. However it is requested to obtain the views of the UGC in this regard and thereafter consult Education Department.
This letter is issued with concurrence of finance Department vide their note No. ED 649 Exp-8 2009 dated 26-3-09."8
The University in turn addressed a letter dated 29.8.2009 to the Secretary, University Grants Commission (Annexure R-32) inviting their views in respect of Dr. Hanuma Naik's case. They seem to have sent reminders to the University Grants Commission dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure R-33), dated 8.3.2010 dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure R-34) and dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure R-35). The University Grants Commission vide its reply dated 19th July, 2010 (Annexure R-36) informed the University to examine the matter in the light of UGC notification 1998 cl. 8.oo and new UGC regulation 2010 cl. 10.0. The letter dated 19th July, 2011 reads thus:
"Subject: Reconsideration of CAS benefit extended under 1986 scheme and implementation of 1996 CAS scheme - reg.
Sir, With reference to your letter No. MU/13/EST(1)/2003-04 dated 04.07.2011, I am enclosed herewith a copy of UGC Notification 1998 clause 8.00 and new UGC Regulation 2010 clause 10.0 which is self explanatory with a request to examine the matter accordingly."9
It is in the backdrop of this correspondence, learned senior advocate for the University submitted that the University has taken decision to re-consider the case of Dr. Hanuma Naik. He submitted that Hanuma Naik as well as the petitioners (Dr. K.M. Lokesh and Dr. B. Uday) will be given an opportunity of hearing to place their case on record in writing and will also be offered an opportunity of being heard if they so desire. He submitted that the representations made by the petitioners dated 10.7.2009 and 14.7.2009 and so also the representation dated 3.6.2011 (Annexure R to W.P.No.40358/2011)of Dr. Hanuma Naik will also be considered by the University. It is in this backdrop I am satisfied that these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:
6. It is open to the University to reconsider the case of Dr. Hanuma Naik and in particular the issue as to from which date the benefits under the Career Advancement 10 Scheme(CAS) can be extended to Dr. Hanuma Naik and, if there is any objection regarding the date of extending the said benefit to the petitioners, the same may also be considered in the light of such objection. In short, the issue of seniority and/or the question of the date from which benefits under the CAS be extended will have to be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of being heard to all concerned including the petitioners and Dr. Hanuma Naik.
All contentions of the parties in respect thereof are kept open. In view thereof, the order dated 24.3.2007 renders ineffective. It is, however, made clear that the respondent- University shall not withdraw any monetary benefits extended to Dr. Hanuma Naik in view of the order dated 24.3.2007 till they take final decision, as aforestated after granting an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. This observation shall not be construed as a direction to the University to withdraw the monetary benefits, if any, even if the decision on the issue of 11 seniority or the date of extending benefit of Career Advancement Scheme to Dr. Hanuma Naik is adverse to him. It is open to the University to take appropriate decision in respect thereof at that stage. The University or the Syndicate of the University shall take the decision as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order on merits in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made/directions issued in this order.
With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SAK