Karnataka High Court
Dr Sunitha N vs Bangalore University on 12 June, 2013
Author: Dilip B.Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
W.P.NOS.21430-21431/2013(S-RES)
BETWEEN
1. DR SUNITHA N
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O B. GOPALA KRISHNA
FULL TIME, GUEST FACULTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE-560056
2. DR D. PARAMESHA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE K.V. DHENA NAIK
FULL-TIME GUEST FACULTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE-560056 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S V NARASIMHAN, ADV.,)
AND
1. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANANBHARATHI
BANGALORE 560 056
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2
2. DR B.C. NAGARAJA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE-560 056
3. DR. K.L PRAKASH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANABHARATHI
BANGALORE-560 056
4. DR. JYOTHI VENKATESH
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE-560 009
5. DR. ARUN SHRI KRISHNA RAO VAIDYA
READER
U.G.C. ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS
BANGALORE-560 001
6. DR. NAGARAJA N
LECTURER
U.G.C. ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS
BANGALORE-560 001
7. DR. IQBALUNNISA
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF URDU
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BANGALORE-560 056
3
8. SRI S.Y. SURENDRA
LECTURER
POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE-560 056
9. DR. MEENA KUMARI
LECTURER
POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE-560 056
10. MRS. HEMAVATHI
ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT
U.V.C.E
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV., FOR HEGDE & RAO FOR C/R2-8 & C/R10, SRI VISHNU D BHAT, ADV., FOR R1) THESE W.Ps. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 13.4.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND PERUSE THE SAME ETC., THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
PC:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners, in the present writ petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have called in question a legality of the order dated 13.4.2013 4 issued by the 1st respondent-University, whereby, appointments of respondent Nos.2 to 10 made under "X Plan" have been regularized with effect from 25-2-2013 against the posts sanctioned by UGC under X-Plan in various post graduate departments, in the pay-scale, as shown in the order, subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent to start selection process to the posts of Associate Professor and Assistant professor in accordance with the notification dated 31-3-2011 (Annexure-CC) and to consider case of the petitioners for appointment to the said posts in Environmental Science Department.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, invited my attention to the statutes relating to creation of teaching posts for various Post Graduate Departments in respondent No.1-University, sanctioned by UGC under X Plan Assistance and Regularization of the services of the 5 existing incumbents appointed against the posts to contend that the order of regularization dated 13-4-2013 (Annexure-A) is contrary to the said statutes. He submitted, under any circumstances, even for regularization, as stipulated in the statutes, the University ought to have followed the method of recruitment and appointment. He submitted that University ought to have followed the guidelines issued by the UGC from time to time and since the procedure laid down by the UGC was not followed, the impugned order of regularization is bad in law and deserves to be set-aside. He then submitted that appointments made in violation of mandatory provisions of the statutes would be wholly illegal. Regularisation, he submitted, cannot be the mode of recruitment, contrary to the mandatory procedure contemplated under the statutes. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.Umarani vs. Registrar for Co-operative Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 6 112 and in Dr.Meera Massey vs. Dr. S.R.Mehrotra (1998) 3 SCC 88.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-University, invited my attention to various documents to contend that University even while appointing the respondents on contract basis had followed due procedure and their appointments were made through Board of Appointment as per the Karnataka State Universities Act. He also invited my attention to the proceedings of the meetings of Committee headed by Dr. P.S.Jayaramu which was constituted for considering whether appointments of respondents-2 to 10, made under X Plan, can be regularised. It is on the basis of the recommendations made by the said committee, he submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-A) has been issued.
7
5. The appointments of respondents-2 to 10 were made in accordance with the statutes framed by the University and approved by the Government for 16 posts. The statutes had also received assent of the Chancellor on 23-3-2010. The statutes clearly show that they relate to creation of teaching posts for various post-graduate departments in the University sanctioned by the UGC under X Plan Assistance and regularisation of services of existing incumbents appointed against the posts. The X plan period and the UGC financial assistance came to an end on March 31st 2007. However, the services of incumbents were continued on contractual basis pending decision by the State Government regarding taking over the liability of these posts. The Inter University Board in its 48th meeting dated 24-09-2007 deliberated on the issue and decided to continue the services of Lecturers who were appointed on contract basis under X Plan in the concerned Universities, requesting the Universities to send suitable proposals for regularization of their services to the 8 Government. It is in this backdrop, the statutes were framed and were brought into force from the date of the assent of the Chancellor.
In the "Scope" of Statutes, it is clearly stated that 16 posts mentioned therein, as sanctioned by the UGC under X Plan Assistance to the University, shall be granted for Post-Graduate Departments in Environmental Science and other subjects. In the present petition, we are concerned only with the subject in Environmental Science and regularization of the existing incumbents appointed and continued against these posts under the statutes. Out of 16 posts, 9 posts are held by respondents-2 to 10. Out of respondents-2 to 10, respondents-2 and 3 are holding the posts in Environmental Science. There does not appear to be any dispute that all the respondents comply the condition of qualification to hold the posts on which they are regularized. They held the qualification as prescribed by the University Grants Commission from time to time. 9
6. Statute No.5 provides for method of recruitment and appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the procedure contemplated under Statute-5 was not followed by the University while regularizing respondents-2 to 10. In my opinion, the method of recruitment and appointment contemplated by Statute-5 would not come in the way of the University for regularization of services of existing incumbents namely, respondents-2 to 10 against the post held by them. The Statutes provide not only for method of recruitment but also regularization of the services of the existing incumbents appointed against the posts. Statute-5, in my opinion, would apply for filling the remaining posts i.e., the remaining seven posts. The University, accordingly, had taken steps to fill up those posts as contemplated by Statute-5 by issuing notification/advertisement. However, that was kept in abeyance in view of the order passed by this Court dated 23rd January 2012 in Writ Petition No.21830-21837/2011. Those writ petitions were filed by respondents No.2 to 8 10 and 10 seeking direction to the University to regularize their services from the date of the assent to the Statutes. The writ petitions were disposed of by the following order:
"In these writ petitions petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent University to take steps for issuing appointment orders pursuant to the statute dated 23.03.2010 Annexure-X. Before approaching this court the petitioners have given representation on 26.08.2010, 14.09.2010, 06.12.2010, 16.12.2010, 03.01.2011, 10.01.2011, 12.01.2011, 19.02.2011 as found at Annexure AE to AN.
2. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if they are directed to consider these representations and also in accordance with the Government statute dated 23.03.2010 Annexure-X and as expeditiously as possible. Writ petitions are hereby disposed of. Ordered accordingly"11
In view of the order passed by this Court dated 23rd January 2012, the Committee chaired by Dr.P.S.Jayaramu was constituted. The said committee made the following recommendations :
"RECOMMENDATIONS:
After elaborate discussions and careful scrutiny of the issues involved, the Committee observes that:
1. The appointments made conform to the Statutes of the University, specially Section 4 & 5 of the Statutes.
2. The Committee strongly recommends that as it has been specifically stated in the Statutes assented to by the Hon'ble Chancellor, the existing incumbents appointed and continued against those posts be regularized with immediate effect along with granting them the regular scale of pay, benefit of experience/service and all other benefits as existing to identical posts in the Bangalore University and as prescribed by the UGC from time to time.
3. If there has been any shortfall in the roster system the same shall be adhered to as 12 suggested by the Director of Backward Classed in future appointments for academic positions".
The report of the Committee was placed before the Syndicate on 25-2-2013. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor approved the resolution of the 103rd Syndicate dated 25-2- 2013, held on 13-4-2013 and on the basis thereof, the impugned order was issued.
It is pertinent to note that the report of both the committees namely, the committee headed by Mr. Shashidara and the committee headed by Dr.P.S.Jayaramu were placed before the Syndicate which accepted the report of the committee headed by P.S.Jayaramu.
7. It is thus clear that initial appointments of respondents-2 to 10, on contract basis under X Plan, were made after following the due procedure and the selection was made by the Board of Appointment as contemplated by the provisions of the Act. When they were selected and 13 appointed, the petitioners were not selected. The petitioners, did not challenge either selection and appointments of these respondents or rejection of their claim at any point of time except a feeble attempt made by petitioner No.1 by filing Writ Petition No.5881/2006. The said writ petition was also dismissed for non-prosecution.
8. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the first meeting of the Committee head by Shashidhara appointed to report on modalities for regularization of contract teachers appointed against the posts sanctioned by the UCG under X Plan Period (Annexure-AA) dated 30th September 2011 to contend that the decision of regularization resulting in the impugned order is wrong and illegal also deserves to be rejected outright. The report of the Committee headed by Shashidhara was not accepted by the Syndicate. The Vice Chancellor, as a matter of fact, thought it fit to take legal opinion in respect of said report and accordingly, it was 14 sent to the Legal Advisor of the University. In the meanwhile, respondents-2 to 10 had approached this Court in the aforementioned writ petition Nos.21830- 21837/2011 and in view of the order passed therein, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.P.S.Jayaramu. In the circumstances, the reliance placed on the proceedings of the said committee dated 30th September 2011 (Annexure-AA) is of no avail to the petitioners.
9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as reflected in the foregoing paragraphs, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in my opinion, are of no avail of the petitioners.
In the circumstances, writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ia