Karnataka High Court
Dr K T Anuradha vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.273 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
DR K T ANURADHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
D/O LATE MR K T NARAIN,
NO.76, MAGNUM MARIGOLD
50 FEET ROAD, NGEF LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560094 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADITYA SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. NIDHISHREE B V, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NO.128, C WING,
SHASTRY BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110015.
2. THE DIRECTOR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
CV RAMAN ROAD
BENGALURU-560012.
3. THE REGISTRAR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
2
CV RAMAN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560012.
4. GOVERNING COUNCIL
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
CV RAMAN ROAD
BENGALURU-560012. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1
SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4
SMT. S. SUMATHI, CGC FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.10.2019
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE (ANNX-EE) AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner who is working with the second respondent-Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, was earlier before this Court in W.P.No.36477/2014 and W.P.No.27262/2018 with a prayer to quash the memorandum/order dated 25.05.2018, whereby the petitioner was to retire as on 31.07.2018, in the cadre of Technical Officer. This Court by order dated 3 28.05.2019 noticed that the petitioner was in fact originally appointed in the Scientific Officer cadre and however, due to certain facts and circumstances she accepted the transfer to Technical Officer cadre.
However, in view of the certain resolutions passed by the Council permitting the transfer of the employees from Technical to Scientific Officer cadre, if they had enrolled for acquiring higher qualification before 20.06.2008 and obtained such higher qualifications after 20.06.2008 and for the reasons stated in the said order, this Court quashed and set aside the memorandum/order dated 25.05.2018 and the resolution of the Evaluation Committee dated 08.06.2018 and directed the respondent-Institute to reconsider the representations of the petitioner and treat the memorandum of writ petitions as further representations and pass speaking orders, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the order.
4
2. Accordingly, an order dated 04.10.2019 was passed by the second respondent-Indian Institute of Science, permitting the petitioner to continue in Scientific stream up to the level of Scientific Officer Grade-I. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the impugned order it is stated that the petitioner is continued as Scientific Officer Grade-I till her acquiring the higher qualification i.e., Ph.D Degree on 07.03.2009, but the petitioner will have to be evaluated by a Committee for possible promotion to the Scientific Officer with effect from 07.03.2009 and if based on her being successful in evaluation, she will be promoted as Senior Scientific Officer.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the petitioner submits that even earlier before this Court, the petitioner was able to establish that the petitioner was denied her legitimate positions in the second respondent-Institute. The learned Senior Counsel would seek to once again point out from the 5 communication dated 04.07.2016 at Annexure 'R2' which is an information given under the Right to Information Act, in respect of another employee of the second respondent-Institute viz., T.B.Rajashekar, that it is clear from the said information that although Sri T.B. Rajashekar did not possess a Ph.D. qualification, he was promoted from Scientific Officer to Senior Scientific Officer thereafter, Senior Scientific Officer (SG) and he was further promoted as Principal Research Scientist on his acquiring a Ph.D. Degree.
4. The learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to a document submitted by the respondent-Institution along with its statement of objections viz., the prescription of payscales, minimum qualifications etc. contained in the communication of the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 05.03.1993. It is pointed out from the said document that for an employee of the second respondent-Institute to be appointed as 6 Scientific Officer Grade-I, a Ph.D. Degree along with three years experience is required or a M.Sc/ B.Tech with 7 years of experience is sufficient. However, for promotion to the cadre of Senior Scientific Officer, a Ph.D. along with five years experience is necessary. Similarly, for an employee to be promoted as Principal Scientific Officer, a Ph.D. with ten years of experience is prescribed. The learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court having noticed the predicament of the petitioner that although she had acquired a Ph.D. degree as on 07.03.2009, however, for various reasons she was deprived of her legitimate promotions. Learned Senior Counsel submits that even as per the order dated 04.10.2019, the second respondent admits that the petitioner having acquired the Ph.D. Degree on 07.03.2009 was required to be considered for further promotional avenues based on the observations made in the previous orders of this Court and directions issued thereunder. Instead of 7 passing such orders, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court, the respondents seek to deny the rights of the petitioner on flimsy grounds.
5. The learned Senior Counsel is also right in his submission that Resolution X, which is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent- Institute may not be applicable for consideration of promotion to the post of Principal Research Scientist.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Institute draws the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the meeting of the Council of the second respondent-Institute which forms the basis of the decision rendered by this Court on the previous occasion. Based on the minutes of the meeting held on 20.06.2008, various resolutions have been passed by the Council. It is submitted that in terms of the Resolution X, for an employee who is in the cadre of Scientific Officer, evaluation is required to be done 8 and only on the basis of the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, promotions can be granted to the employees of the second respondent-Institute. The learned Counsel therefore points out to Clause (3) in Resolution X, which requires that a Scientific Officer has to submit a report of his/her work for the period under review. The learned Counsel submits that this is what has been stated in the order dated 04.10.2019, when it was directed that the petitioner has to be evaluated by the Committee for a possible promotion as Senior Scientific Officer and for placement in Pay Band IV. In other words, it is submitted that the promotion cannot be automatic and it has to be considered only in accordance with the prescription.
7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the second respondent-Indian Institute of Science and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that 9 although it is stated in the order dated 04.10.2019 that the petitioner is required to be evaluated by the Evaluation Committee, and this Court is also of the opinion that the second respondent has to follow the procedure prescribed, nevertheless based on what has transpired earlier and the reinstatement of the petitioner consequent to the orders/directions given by this Court in the previous round of litigation and the fact that the petitioner has nothing to place before the Evaluation Committee in the form of a report which could be reviewed, since the petitioner's services were sought to put an end in the year 2018 and by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has been able to continue as Scientific Officer, the Evaluation Committee will have to take note of these peculiar facts and circumstances into consideration.
8. At any rate, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered from 07.03.2009 for 10 promotion to the post of Senior Scientific Officer and further to Principal Research Scientist, in terms of the law applicable for consideration of such promotion. The Resolution X which is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second respondent-Institute if not applicable to the post of promotion to the cadre of the Principal Research Scientist, then appropriate provisions shall be taken into consideration.
9. The second respondent-Institute is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal Research Scientist in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-