Karnataka High Court
Smt. M N Suneetha vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2037
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B. Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.13728/2013(S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
Smt. M.N. Suneetha, D/o. S. Nagappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Associate Professor,
Department of Electrical Engineering,
University of Vishweshwaraiah College of
Engineering (UVCE),
Bengaluru-560 001
... PETITIONER
(By Sri Vijaya Kumar, for
Sri B.B. Bajantri, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
M.S. Building, Sachivalaya-2,
Bengaluru-560 001
2. The Registrar,
Bangalore University,
Jnanabharathi,
Bengaluru-560 056
2
3. The All India Council for Technical Education,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
I.G. Sports Complex, I.T.O.,
New Delhi-110 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri A.C. Balaraj, AGA for R1;
Sri B. Pramod, Advocate for R2;
Smt. Sona M. Badiger, Advocate for R3)
***
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for
records relating to issue of the impugned endorsement
dated 19.12.2012 vide Annexure-N issued by the 2nd
respondent and after perusal set aside the same;
To direct the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of
the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Reader/Assistant Professor in Backlog vacancy reserved
for Schedule Caste in the Electrical Department of UVCE
in terms of the statutes framed under Section 49(9) of the
Karnataka University Act vide Annexure-C; and
To direct the 2nd respondent to grant all
consequential benefits pursuant to considering her claim
for promotion to the post of Reader with retrospective
effect.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:-
3
ORDER
Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, for Sri B.B. Bajantri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri A.C.Balraj, learned AGA appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri. B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Smt. Sona M. Badigeri, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
2. Perused the writ petition and Annexures produced along with the petition and also the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that initially she was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Electrical in the 2nd respondent University. It is contended that as per AICTE Regulations, for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor qualification prescribed are that; one should have a Masters Degree in the respective 4 subject and minimum experience of five years in the cadre of Lecturer.
4. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in BMS Engineering College on 28.04.1992. Thereafter she was appointed as Lecturer in the Electrical Department in the UVCE College of Engineering on 05.11.1993. Considering the services rendered by her in BMS Engineering College, Bangalore, she would complete minimum required experience of five years as on 28-04-1997.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor by taking into consideration the services rendered by her in BMS Engineering College and treating her case at roster point No.1 as backlog recommended the names of the general candidates for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor. Subsequently by another 5 proposal, the second respondent once again recommended the names of Smt.Deepa Shenoy and another for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor in the Electrical Department ignoring the claim of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by non-consideration of her claim for promotion, made several representations to the respondents including the Department of Social Welfare. Considering the said representations, the Social Welfare Department had directed the second respondent- University to consider her claim for promotion with retrospective effect against the backlog vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste. Inspite of the said direction issued by the Department of Social Welfare, no action has been taken by the second respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the second respondent has preferred this writ petition.
6
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in 1996 when the committee constituted for the purpose of considering the promotion for the post of Reader/Assistant Professor from the post of Teacher i.e. Lecturer, which met on 07-11-1996 and three lecturers were promoted to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor, but no Lecturer belonging to SC/ST was promoted, since no eligible SC/ST candidate was available during the relevant point of time. He also submits that in the impugned endorsement, it was noted that the petitioner is the only candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, but she is yet to complete five years of experience in the cadre of Lecturer to become eligible for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor. Learned counsel fairly submits that it was on 05-11-1998, the petitioner had completed five years of experience in the cadre of Lecturer and became eligible for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor, and there was vacancy in the cadre of Reader/Assistant 7 Professor. He submits that the endorsement issued by the second respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor from the post of Lecturer on the ground that she has not made any request and she has already been given benefit of senior pay scale is not correct. He submits that the petitioner has been requesting and submitting representations to the second respondent to consider her claim for promotion. The grant of benefit of senior pay scale cannot be construed as regular promotion and it is in the nature of granting benefit of advancement of time scale. Therefore, he submits that when the petitioner has got requisite qualification and entitled to be promoted as Reader/Assistant Professor against the reserved backlog quota, the second respondent ought to have considered her case for promotion. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition by directing the second respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Reader/Assistant 8 Professor from the post of Lecturer with retrospective effect against the reserved backlog quota.
8. Sri.A.C.Balaraj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that if the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste, if she has acquired requisite qualification and entitled to be promoted to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor against the reserved backlog quota, the second respondent has to consider and dispose of her representation on merit and in accordance with law.
9. Sri.Promod, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-University submits that in the year 1996, when committee was constituted for considering promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor from the post of Lecturer, the petitioner was not possessing five years of experience in the cadre of Lecturer and therefore, her case was not considered for promotion. He submits that since 9 the petitioner has been given the benefit of senior pay scale and further on 26-02-2008, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor, her claim for promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor was not considered. He submits that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and he prays for dismissing the writ petition.
10. In response to his submission, Sri.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that either extension of benefit of senior pay scale or appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor do not constitute as regular promotion as contemplated under Section 49(9) of the Statute of the Second respondent produced at Annexure-B. He submits that after the petitioner acquiring five years of experience as Lecturer, if the post of Assistant Professor became vacant, then the claim of the petitioner for promotion has to be considered with retrospective effect against the reserved backlog quota. 10
11. Perusal of the impugned endorsement produced at Annexure-N would show that as on 07-11-1996, when the Committee was constituted for the purpose of considering promotion to the post of Reader/Assistant Professor from the post of Lecturer, no eligible candidate belonging SC/ST was available. In fact, it is noted in the endorsement Annexure-N that the petitioner is the only candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category and working as a Lecturer, but she has not possessed five years experience a lecturer. Therefore, her case was not considered for promotion for the post of Reader/Assistant Professor as per AICTE norms. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has acquired five years experience in the cadre of Lecturer on 5- 11-1998. If that is so, and if the post of Assistant Professor become vacant subsequent to the petitioner acquiring five years experience in the cadre of Lecturer, there is a duty cast upon the second respondent to consider her case for 11 promotion to the post of Assistant Professor against the reserved backlog quota. It is further seen from Annexure-N that claim of the petitioner for promotion was not considered on the ground that she has not made any request or submitted any representation requesting to consider her case for promotion. Whereas the documents produced along with the writ petition would show that the petitioner has been making requests and submitting representations requesting the second respondent to consider her claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor against the reserved backlog quota. Therefore, justice would be met if this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the second respondent by enclosing relevant Government Orders, Judgments of Courts, University Statutes and other documents on which, the petitioner would like to place reliance to consider her case for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor/Reader 12 with retrospective effect against the reserved backlog quota and directing the second respondent to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.
12. Hence the following ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-A is hereby set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit a detailed representation to the second respondent regarding her claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor/Reader and then to the post of Professor with retrospective effect against the reserved backlog quota by enclosing necessary documents. The second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law and with reference to statutes of the 2nd respondent - University produced at Annexure-'C' as 13 expeditiously as possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of such representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*/mpk/-*