Karnataka High Court
Sri Satish Kumar M vs Sri Prashanth P A on 23 June, 2023
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. NO.4896 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. SATISH KUMAR .M
S/O MURARI P
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT C/O. THAMANNA S
OPP. TO KEB KOTHATHI
MANDYA-571 402.
AND ALSO UNDER THE ORDERS OF
APPOINTMENT AT PES COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, MANDYA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. PRASHANTH P.A.
S/O ANANTHASWAMY M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
AT PRESENT WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
AT SAI VIDYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
RAJANAKUNTE
2
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 003.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TECHNICAL)
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
MANDYA-571 401.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MANDYA-571 401.
6. THE REGISTRAR
VISVESVRAYA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
INAM SANGAM, BELGAUM-590018.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2
SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R4 & R5
SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV., FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/7/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
3669/2015.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10.07.2017, by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' for short) has been allowed and the orders dated 29.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 by which appellant was appointed to the post of Associate Professor in PES College of Engineering (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution' for short) has been quashed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. On 21.11.2012, Principal of the Institution issued a notification inviting applications for one post of Associate Professor in Chemistry in General Merit category. As per the notification, on or before 27.12.2012, the applications along with necessary documents duly attested, should be submitted. In 4 respect of the post in question, the qualification and service experience was required as per revised All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Rules and Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Karnataka Government.
3. The Government order dated 31.01.2010 which prescribes the qualification for the post in question.
Assistant By direct For direct recruitment
Professor recruitment (1) Must possess Ph.D
Engineering Degree with the first
College (Non- class in the Master's
Engineering Degree level in the
subjects) appropriate subjects
(Rs.12,000-
18,300) (AICTE) Must have put in five
years experience in
teaching in an
institution recognized
by university
established by law
level of lecturer
And must not have
attained the age of
forty five years.
5
4. The appellant as well as the petitioner and three other candidates submitted their applications along with necessary documents. The Selection committee interviewed the candidates on 05.02.2013 and made a recommendation for appointment of the appellant on the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry. The Institution thereafter sought approval of the Government for appointment of the appellant, which was granted on 29.12.2014. The appellant by an order dated 31.12.2014 was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry.
5. The appointment of the appellant was assailed in a writ petition by respondent No1. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 10.07.2017 inter alia held that as per the clarification dated 11.11.2010 issued by Vishveshvarayya Technological University (VTU), biochemistry is not a relevant subject for chemistry. It was further held that as per 6 the Government Order, a candidate should have five years of teaching experience in an institution recognized by the University established by law. It was therefore, held that the appellant did not have five years of requisite experience as he had taught in Pre University College for a period of one year out of the five years. Thus, the Learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification for the post. Therefore, the orders dated 29.12.2014 issued by State Government according approval to the selection of appellant and the order of appointment of the appellant dated 31.12.2014 were quashed and the institution was directed to seek approval of the State Government for appointment of respondent No.1 to the post of Associate Professor. It was further directed that in case, approval is granted, respondent No.1 shall be appointed to the said post forthwith.
7
6. It is not in dispute that during pendency of this appeal, the approval to appointment of respondent No.1 has been granted and respondent No.1 has been appointed on the post in question.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the teaching experience of the appellant in Pre- University College is excluded, then also the appellant had the requisite teaching experience of five years. While inviting the attention of this court to the affidavit filed by the Registrar of VTU, it is contended that the University does not have any authority or power to prescribe educational qualification in respect of appointment of teaching and non teaching staff, in affiliated colleges, which are exclusively under the control of State Government. Alternatively, it is contended that determination of eligibility criteria/condition are essentially in the realm of policy and the scope of judicial review is 8 extremely limited. It is contended that the educational qualification of the appellant was examined by the selection committee and the same was accepted by the employer and therefore, no interference was called for in exercise of powers of judicial review. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA VS. DR.R.VENKATASUBBAIAH AND OTHERS', (2008) 14 SCC 306 and 'ANAND YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS', (2021) 12 SCC 390.
8. On the other hand, Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that biochemistry is not an appropriate subject for Master Degree Level in Chemistry. It is also urged that the appellant did not annex the documents indicating that he had five years teaching experience along with his application which 9 was submitted pursuant to recruitment notification. It is contended that the document relating to teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy was submitted subsequently after the cut off date. It is contended that Learned Single Judge therefore, has rightly set aside the appointment of the appellant. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'GANAPATH SINGH GAANGARAM SINGH RAJPUR VS.
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY', (2014) 3 SCC 767.
9. In pursuance of the direction issued on 16.06.2023, the counsel for institution has produced the record and has submitted that the appellant is eligible for appointment to the post in question. Learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the case of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant meets the eligibility criteria fixed by notification dated 31.01.2010. 10
10. We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant meets the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification dated 31.01.2010 for the appointment to the post of Associate Professor. It is not in dispute that the post of Assistant Professor has not been designated as Associate Professor and notification dated 31.01.2010 prescribes the eligibility criteria for the post in question.
11. Before proceeding further, we may advert to the well settled legal principles with regard to scope of judicial review with regard to eligibility conditions in respect of appointment to teaching post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VS. C.D.GOVINDA RAO', AIR 1965 SC 491 has held that when a recommendation made by an educational 11 institution for appointment to the institution are made before the courts, namely the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of any allegation about malafides. The recommendation made by an expert body should not likely be interfered with. In academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulation of the notification issued, the court shall keep their hands off since, those issues fall within the domain of experts. The aforesaid decision was referred to with approval in 'B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA supra, and 'UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER VS. NEHA ANIL BOBDE', (2013) 10 SCC 519 and 'UNION OF INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR', (2015) 12 SCC 291.
12. It is equally well settled legal proposition that a candidate while applying for a post should have the requisite eligibility qualification the date fixed for 12 such purpose. A candidate has to produce necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets to establish that he possesses the requisite qualification. It is settled in law that depending on the facts of the case there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principles as it pertains in the domain of procedure. [See: 'DOLLY CHHANDA VS. CHAIRMAN, JEE AND OTHERS', (2005) 9 SCC 779].
13. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. The eligibility condition which are required to be fulfilled for the selection to the post of Associate Professor are firstly, a candidate should have five years teaching experience in an institution recognized by University and secondly, that he should have a Ph.D Degree with first class in Master Degree Level in appropriate subject.
13
14. The particulars of teaching experience of the appellant are extracted below for the facility of reference:
Name of Date of Date of Designation Duration Excluding Including the Joining Relieving of in Years PHD (Part PHD Full Employer Employment Time) time PHD and Research Research Address Experiences Experience University Guest 01.09.2000 15.01.2001 4 Months of Mysore Lecturer Bharathi College of Part time 2 years 9 01.07.1999 25.04.2002 Pharmacy, lecturer months KM Doddi 20.04.2000 Date of Part time PhD PhD 29.04.2002 2 years Joining Candidate Research PhD University of Mysore 2 years Full Time 11 35 months 30.04.2002 31.03.2005 PhD months Utah State Postdoctoral 1 years 3 University, 28.04.2005 31.07.2006 Research 15 months 15 months months USA Associate Brandeis Postdoctoral University, 01.08.2006 30.04.2007 Research 8 months 8 months 8 months USA Associate Mayo School of Graduate Postdoctoral 1 years Medical 01.05.2007 19.03.2009 Research 10 22 months 22 months Education Associate months (Mayo Clinic) USA The Agency of Science Technology Postdoctoral and 06.07.2009 15.01.2010 Research 6 months 6 months 6 months Research Fellow (ASTAR) Singapore Vidya Vikas Institute of 27.12.2012 Associate 2 years Engineering application 08.02.2010 Professor of 10 34 months 34 months & last date Chemistry months Technology PESCE
- VTU affiliated Total experience in Months 85 months 120 months Dr.Satish Kumar M Total Experience in years 7 years 10 years 14 Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid particulars, it is evident that the appellant had requisite teaching experience of five years even without taking into account his teaching experience in Pre University College. Thus, we need not examine the issue with regard to validity of teaching experience of the appellant in Pre University College. The aforesaid teaching experience has not been disputed by the State Government or by the Institution. The only objection urged on behalf of respondent No.1 is that the document pertaining to teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy was furnished by the appellant beyond the cut off date of submission of final documents.
15. It is relevant to notice that the appellant had initially annexed the document with regard to his teaching experience in Pre University College, 15 however, an objection was raised by the State Government with regard to his teaching experience pursuant to which, the appellant furnished the certificate with regard to his teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy. The appellant had acquired the aforesaid teaching experience prior to 21.11.2022 i.e., prior to issuance of employment notification. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we find that the appellant was justified in submitting the certificate with regard to his teaching experience subsequently.
16. The other issue involved in this appeal is whether biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master Degree in Chemistry. The selection committee, a committee which is an expert body has held that biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master Degree in Chemistry. There are no allegation of malafide made against the members of the selection committee. 16 Therefore, this court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the selection committee, which is a body of experts and hold otherwise.
17. In view of preceding analysis and in view of our conclusion that appellant fulfils the criteria as prescribed in the notification dated 30.01.2010, it is not necessary for us to advert to the contention raised by respondent No.1 that Vishveshvarayya Technological University was competent to decide on the question of qualification for the post in question and the affidavit filed on its behalf in this appeal cannot be relied upon.
In the result, the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3669/2015 is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.
17
Needless to state that the appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS