Karnataka High Court
Matilda S Rodrigues vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2014
Bench: N.Kumar, C.R.Kumaraswamy
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.62239/2011 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
*MATILDA S. RODRIGUES
AGED 37, OCC. TEACHER
R/O RAJIV NAGAR, SIRSI
DIST. NORTH KANARA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION
M. S. BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
* Corrected v.c.o. dtd. 24.02.2014
Sd/-
Hon'ble NKJ & CRKSJ
:2:
3. THE DIRECTOR
PRE-UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BOARD
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003
4. ROOPASHREE M.K.
NO.33, HRIDAYKUNJ
I MAIN, H BLOCK
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
MYSORE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3)
(SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R-4 IS SERVED)
--------
THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, DATED
19.02.2010, AT ANNEXURE-L IN SO FAR AS
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF PETITION IN
A.NO.4414/2009; CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE
NO.ED203DJW2009 DATED 09.09.2009 (ANNEXURE-
G) AND DECLARE THAT SELECTION OF RESPONDENT
NO.4 AS LECTURER OF CHEMISTRY AS IS ILLEGAL
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO
SELECT THE APPLICANT FOR THE POST OF LECTURE
IN CHEMISTRY.
:3:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, N.KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure 'L' rejecting the application filed by the applicants on the ground that the appellants do not possess the qualification prescribed by the rules and notification for selection to the post of Lecturers in Chemistry.
2. The petitioner is a Master of Science in Chemistry (Organic) from Karnataka University, Dharwad. She has secured I class. The Karnataka Public Service Commission has invited applications on 27.03.2008 for selection of lecturers in Chemistry and selection was to be held on the basis of performance in the competitive examinations to be held for the said purpose. The petitioner appeared for the examination :4: and secured 113.5 marks. She belongs to GM Woman 3B category. By notice dated 09.01.2009, she was called upon to furnish the documents in support of the eligibility, which she produced. Later on, while preparing provisional list of candidates selected, the petitioner was not considered and she sought explanation. The second respondent issued a communication dated 25.06.2009 to the effect that the petitioner is not being considered for selection on the ground that she holds Master's degree in Organic Chemistry and that they were only considered Masters degree in Chemistry as per Annexure 'C'.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No.2851/2009 seeking quashing of an endorsement given by the second respondent and to issue direction to consider her representation for the post of lecturer. The Tribunal :5: clubbed the said application alongwith other similar application and passed an order on 14.07.2009 directing the Government to consider the representation given by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Expert Committee gave its report setting out the conditions to be fulfilled before a candidature is considered for recruitment as lecturer in the Pre-University in respect of the subject Chemistry. On the basis of the said report, KPSC selected three persons qualified in Masters of Science in applied Chemistry. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Annexure-'G' stating that as the petitioner does not possess a Master's decree in applied chemistry, her case is not considered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner again approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal was of the view that the different Expert Committees have given different opinions :6: regarding specialisation in Chemistry. But it is for the rule making authority to accept or not to accept the recommendation of the Expert Committee. But so far as the Courts are concerned, no mandamus can be issued in this regard. Further, it held that the Tribunal cannot go into the equivalence of a qualification nor can this Tribunal direct the Selection Committee to treat a particular qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. The discretion of declaring equivalence of a qualification is left to the wisdom of the State Government. Further it held admittedly, the applicants do not possess the qualification prescribed by the Rules and the Notification for selection to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. It is a settled position in law that when qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before the case of a candidate can be considered for appointment. When a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and if an applicant does not :7: possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of the application or by the cut off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, he is not eligible to be considered for such post. In the rules or in the advertisement, no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possesses the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the view that there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner and accordingly, it came to be dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
:8:
7. The undisputed facts in this case are the petitioner is a Masters of Science in Chemistry (Organic) from Karnataka University. She has secured a first class.
8. A notification came to be issued on 05.07.2007 by the Karnataka Public Service Commission inviting applications from the eligible candidates for various posts. One such post for which notification issued was lecturer in Pre-university colleges. Item No.8 of the said notification relates to Chemistry. In the bottom of the notification, it is stated that a candidate must have passed Masters degree in II class in the subject prescribed in corresponding entries in column No.3 of the table. Sl.No.2 was the table deals with the subject for which application is sought and column No.3 deals with the qualification. At item No.8 subject shown is chemistry and in item No.3, the qualification prescribed is Masters degree in II class in Chemistry. It is in :9: pursuance of the said notification that the petitioner submitted her application as she possess the requisite qualification. The petitioner was called upon to appear for the competitive examination to be held by the KPSC. If the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the said post, the second respondent could not have sent intimation calling upon the petitioner to appear for the qualifying examination. In the qualifying examination, she has secured 113.5 marks as reflected in the notification issued by the KPSC. Thereafter, KPSC issued a notice dated 09.01.2009 calling upon her to furnish documents in support of her eligibility i.e. the certificate showing she possess Masters degree in II class in chemistry which she produced. It is thereafter her case is not considered on the ground that she possess Masters degree in (Organic) Chemistry. In the entire notification issued by the KPSC, there is no mention that a person with a Masters degree in Organic Chemistry would not be : 10 : eligible. However, when the same was challenged before the Tribunal, a direction was issued to the Government to consider the representation. As per recommendations of the Committee, the candidate must have studied Chemistry as one of the optional subject at the degree level. Then, they must have obtained Master's degree from any of the recognised Universities in any of the following specialisations:
1. M.Sc in Chemistry
2. M.Sc in Physical Chemistry
3. M.Sc in Organic Chemistry
4. M.Sc in Inorganic Chemistry
5. M.Sc in Analytical Chemistry
6. M.Sc in Industrial Chemistry
7. M.Sc in Bio Chemistry
8. M.Sc in Applied Chemistry
9. M.Sc in Pharmaceutical Chemistry
10. M.Sc in Medicinal Chemistry.
9. It was also made clear that a candidate who has completed five years integrated M.Sc course in Chemistry or Applied Chemistry should also be : 11 : considered. The said report was not accepted by the Government on the ground that in the notification issued what is prescribed is a M.Sc II class in chemistry. A similar matter arose before this Court in the case of MRS. ANITHA GURUSUDDAPPA SULLAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.40522/2010 and connected matters, it was disposed of on 26.11.2013, where it has been held as under:
"2. Records reveal that petitioner in W.P.No.26396/2010 has completed his M.Sc (Inorganic Chemistry) from Gulbarga University, petitioner in W.P.No.40522/2010 has completed her M.Sc (Physical Chemistry) from Karnataka University and petitioners in W.P.Nos.26002/2010 and 38029/2010 have completed M.Sc (Organic Chemistry) from Karnataka University and Gulbarga University, respectively.
.
3. The notification dated 27.05.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel and : 12 : Administrative Secretariat bearing No.DPAR 71 SRE 94, Bangalore, reveals that the qualification prescribed for being appointed as lecturer in Government Pre-University Colleges (for direct recruitment) is pass in masters degree in second class with minimum of 55% marks in subjects specified in corresponding entries in column (3) of the table annexed. Sl.No.10 of the table annexed to the said notification pertains to the post of lecturer in Chemistry and qualification prescribed is Chemistry which means M.Sc in Chemistry is the qualification prescribed for appointment as lecturer in Chemistry. Since petitioners had got M.Sc (Inorganic Chemistry), M.Sc (Physical Chemistry) and M.Sc (Organic Chemistry), their case for selection has not been considered by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in respect of 2008 notification. The final selection list was issued on 18.06.2009 and consequently, an endorsement came to be issued to the petitioners stating that petitioners are not qualified to the post of lecturers. The said endorsements were : 13 : questioned by petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.4189/2009 and connected matter which came to be dismissed by the impugned order, dated 19.02.2010.
4. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Advocate for petitioners that Karnataka University and Gulbarga University will issue M.Sc degree indicating specific subjects, like M.Sc (Inorganic Chemistry), M.Sc (Organic Chemistry), M.Sc (Physical Chemistry) etc., The nomenclature of M.Sc degree specified the particular subject studied by the concerned candidate, whereas, other Universities will provide M.Sc Chemistry degree though the candidates concerned might have studied either Organic Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry or Physical Chemistry etc. Thus, according to the petitioners' counsel, merely the nomenclature in the masters degree should not affect the career of the candidates who have obtained masters degree in Chemistry from Karnataka University and Gulbarga University.: 14 :
5. The said submission made at the bar by the advocate for petitioners appears to be just and proper. The nomenclature of the master degree found in the certificate issued by the concerned University should not affect the career of the candidates. Since the Universities have adopted particular procedure/nomenclature for issuing degree in particular manner though the candidates have studied M.Sc Chemistry, candidates should not be deprived of being considered for selection. However, such an anomaly is subsequently rectified by issuing one more notification dated 13.04.2012 by the State Government wherein it is clarified that for the post of lecturer in Chemistry, master degree in Chemistry or Physical Chemistry or Organic Chemistry or Inorganic Chemistry or Analytical Chemistry or Industrial Chemistry or Bio Chemistry or Applied Chemistry, etc., need to be considered. Thus, it is clear that State Government having come to know of the defect in the earlier notification, has clarified the defect and rectified the same.": 15 :
From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the Government issued a notification dated 13.04.2012, wherein it is clarified that for the post of lecturer in Chemistry, Masters degree in Chemistry or Physical Chemistry or Organic Chemistry or Inorganic Chemistry or Analytical Chemistry or Industrial Chemistry or Bio Chemistry or Applied Chemistry etc. need to be considered. Therefore, the said notification issued by the Government is clarificatory in nature. That was the understanding by the Government but it was not reflected in proper words. Therefore, confusion arose and now a clarification is issued. That is the reason why in the notification issued by the KPSC, the qualification prescribed was a Masters degree II class in Chemistry. By issuing notification without clarity by prescribed conditions without applying mind, a valuable right accrued to a candidate who possess a valid degree of a University cannot be denied. The whole object behind this recruitment is to recruit duly qualified : 16 : eligible persons for imparting education to students in Pre-University. Thus keeping in mind the objects sought to be achieved coupled with the fact that the students acquired degree by their hard studies in Universities, by issuing ambiguous notification which has no basis and serves no purpose, a valuable right of candidates cannot be deprived. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to hold it otherwise as is done by the Tribunal. This court is not prescribing the qualification prescribed for the post. All that this court is expected to do is to harmoniously interpret the terms of the notifications, the report submitted by the Expert Committee and the object with which, this recruitment is conducted, so that the interest of the student's community and the interest of the student, who has secured qualification is protected. Infact, it is the duty of this Court to protect the interest of all these stakeholders. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has to succeed. Hence, we pass the following: : 17 :
ORDER
1. Writ petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the authorities are hereby set-aside.
3. The KPSC is directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits treating the Masters degree in Organic Chemistry as the Masters degree in Chemistry.
4. Parties to bear their own costs.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE LB