Karnataka High Court
Dr Shankar Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2013
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.S.Indrakala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE B S INDRAKALA
Writ Petition Nos. 26902-14 of 2009 (S-KAT)
C/w
Writ Petition Nos. 26535-39 of 2009,
25733-39 of 2009, 25740-50 of 2009 &
26138 of 2013, 4309 of 2010
and 28567 of 2009 (S-KAT)
IN WP NOS. 26902-14/2009
BETWEEN:
1. DR SHANKAR LAMANI
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT C/O A K MAKANDAR,
JUNIPETH GAS AGENCY,
RAMDURG TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 123
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1663/2009
2. DR V T BASAVARAJ
S/O V THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT NANDITAVARE POST
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1664/2009
2
3. DR BASAVARAJ S HIREMATH
S/O SRI SHIVA SHARANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT HATTIKUNI POST
YADGIRI TALUK,
GULBERGA DISTRICT - 585 202
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1665/2009
4. DR U R KANTHARAJU
S/O RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT # 349, 9TH CROSS,
KUMBARAKOPPALU
METAGALLI POST,
MYSORE - 570 016
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1666/2009
5. DR MANJUNATHA K M
S/O LATE MALLAPPA K,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT KOTEGALA
NANDAGOWDARA MANE,
SHYAGALE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 002
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1667/2009
6. MR PRAKASH LORES SOUZA
S/O LORES,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY,
S V M ARTS & COM. WOMENS'
COLLEGE, ILKAL POST
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 125
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1668/2009
3
7. MISS JAYASHREE AMMINABHAVI
D/O BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC: SUPERVISOR,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT
R/AT C/O ANJANEYA BOOK HOUSE,
BUS STAND ROAD POST,
RAIBAG TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 317
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1669/2009
8. DRAKSHAYANI KONGAWD
D/O PANDURANG,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: HEALTH EDUCATOR,
SDM MEDICAL COLLEGE
R/A C/O IRANNA ANGADI,
BADAMI ONI SAI NAGAR UNKLE,
HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 034
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1670/2009
9. SMT RENUKA DESAI
W/O M S KARADI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT SRI BF YALIGAR
URBAN BANK, OPP. SHIGGAON
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 205
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1671/2009
10. MR.NEELAKANTH FAKKEERAPPA
GUDAGUR
S/O FAKKEERAPPA H GUDAGUR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: GUEST LECTURER,
R/AT NEELAVENI NILAYA
1ST FLOOR, SAPTAPUR,
10TH CROSS, DHARWAD
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1672/2009
4
11. MR. SIDDAPPA NERLI
S/O NEMMANNA NERLI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER,
R/AT HEBBAL AT & POST,
HUKKERI TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 221
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1673/2009
12. MR VENKATESH
S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT C/O KATTIMANI BUILDING
BEHIND TULI PUMP,
2ND CROSS, HOSUR, HUBLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 021
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1674/2009
13. MR. PRALHAD PAMMAR
S/O SHANKAR PAMMAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED,
R/AT KALMAD, D L T.,
KALMAD POST, RAMDURG TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 123
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO. 1675/2009 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri P S Rajagopal, Sr. Counsel for
Sri Shivaraj N Arali, Adv.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
5
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN
PARK HOUSE,
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. MANJULA S V
D/O VENKATARAMANAIAH
NO.375, 10TH CROSS,
JAKKUR LAYOUT
JAKKUR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 064
4. NAGARAJA V
S/O VENKATESHAPPA C L
CHILLAPANAHALLI VILLAGE
NAYAKARAHALLI POST
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101
5. MEGHA
C/O MANJULA S CHALAWADI
R/AT RASONEE BUILDING
BESIDE KCD STAFF QUARTERS
NEAR UDAY HOSTEL,
BARAKOTRI ROAD
DHARWAD - 580 003
6. MAHESHKUMAR
S/O RAMCHANDRA
# 10-1-161, BETHANY COLONY
MANGALPET
BIDAR - 585 401
7. SALMA BANO
NO. #18/B, 2ND CROSS,
S R K GARDEN
BANNERGATTA MAIN ROAD
JAYANAGRA,
BANGALORE - 560 041
8. RESHMA
W/O AHAMED BAIG G K
C/O RAZIYA BEGUM,
KURUBARA KERI
GOPPALA,
SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201
6
9. SARASWATHI S
# 135, 15TH CROSS,
ESHWARA LAYOUT
INDIRANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 038
10. VISHVANATHA K C
S/O CHINNAKRISHNACHARI
KANAGANAHALLI,
THIPPUR POST
K R NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602
11. SHANKARA N R
S/O RAMAIAH N M
#9/115, PAPER TOWN
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 302
12. RAJASHEKARA P B
S/O BOMMANNA
PANCHANAHALLI,
KADUR TALUK
CHICKMANGALORE DISTRICT
PIN - 573 132
13. MANJUNATHA K M
S/O MUNIRATNAPPA
OCC: PART TIME LECTURER
R/A KADARIGANAKUPPA VILLAGE
N G HULKUR POST,
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA
14. MARUTHI M
COPY EDITOR-NEWS SECTION
KASTURI MEDIA PVT. LTD.
#12 & 12/1, KASTURBA
ROAD AT POST,
BANGALORE - 560 001
15. SHIVALEELA
W/O BASAVARAJ CHATNALLI
7
H.NO.7-1, C/O BABU RAO
KALSHETTY, OM NAGAR,
GULBARGA
16. SIDDAPPA D O
C/O PARAMESHWARAPPA H
DURGAVARA POST
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537
17. SHIVARAMEGOWDA
JONNA HALLI,
REDDY HALLI POST
VIA SULIBELE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT - 562 129
18. SRINIVASREDDY
S/O GUNDAREDDY
AT & POST BAROOR
TALUK & DISTRICT BIDAR
19. BASWARAJ
S/O CHANNAPPA
H.NO.9-8-223,
BASAVA NAGAR COLONY
BVB COLLEGE ROAD,
BIDAR - 585 403
20. SANGANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA
C/O PAVADEPPA FLOOR MILL
BADIBASE, SINDHANUR
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 128
21. SHIVANNA H S
S/O SIDDAPPA SHASTRI
HOSAHATTI, KABBALA POST
BELAGURU (VIA),
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 573 114
22. RAMANNA T
S/O THIMMANNA (CONTRACTOR),
OPP:-NIRMALA FLOOR MILL
8
NEAR PARK,
TYAGARAJANAGAR POST,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522
23. JYOTHI D
D/O DYAVE GOWDA
"VASANTHA NILAYA",
#3883, KT 709, 7TH CROSS,
CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR,
MANDYA - 571 401
24. GOWRAMMA D N
LECTURER IN SOCIOLOGY
SRI MARUTHI FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
HOLALUR POST,
SHIMOGA TALUK - 577 216
25. JOTHI N
W/O SHIVAPRAKASH B G,
RAITHARA-BEEDI,
NYAMATHI-POST,
N.U. NINGAPPA HOUSE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 223
26. SIDDARAM,
S/O BASAVARAJ PATIL
H.NO.78, MANIKESHWARI NILAYA
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
GULBARGA - 585 105
27. BASAVARAJA A D
MARABANAHALLI POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 551
28. SATHISHA M E
S/O ESWARAPPA M.
HOSALLI KATIGANERE POST,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT - 577 550
29. SHANTA BANGARI YALLAPPA
C/O K A SIDDHANTI,
9
18/1, RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR,
1ST CROSS,
DHARWAD - 580 003
30. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O JAGADEVAPPA WALI
#67, ALAND ROAD,
VIJAYA NAGAR COLONY,
GULBARGA - 585 101
31. BHAGYA Y K
D/O PADMAMMA,
KT6B, SHREERATHNA NILAYA,
8TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI
NAGAR, MANDYA - 571 401.
32. ASHA K B
D/O BELLIAPPA,
#333/2, HEMANTH NILAYA,
OPP. CHOWDESHWARI
PETROL BUNK,
CHANNARAYAPATNA,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116
33. GODAVARI
W/O RAVOKLANT PATIL,
H.NO.-67, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY
ALAND ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 101
34. POORNIMA B
D/O BASAVALINGAIAH P N
#1717, RAVINDRANAGAR UPSTAIRS,
NEAR BALAJI NURSING HOME,
HASSAN - 573 201
35. CHIKKARAJU C
S/O CHIKKAGANGAIAH
MASKAL POST, GULUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK &
DISTRICT - 572 122
36. ANJULA G
D/O GOVINDAPPA V T
VISWANATHA (V&P)
10
KUNDANA(H),
DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110
37. GOVINDARAYA P H
C/O SHIVALINGAPPA
SANATHANA
CYCLE STAND FACTORY ROAD
UPPARAHALLY
TUMKUR - 572 102
38. CHANDRASHEKARA C
C/O J.C. GURAPPA,
3C-604 DOS/ISRO,
1ST MAIN ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040
39. PRAMILA M B
D/O BORAIAH M S,
BANDI GOWDA LAYOUT,
#349, 3RD CROSS,
MANDYA - 571 401
40. RAMYA R
W/O RAVIKUMAR G P
#238, 16-CROSS, 23-MAIN,
5TH PHASE, J P NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078
41. MANSUR PASHA
S/O MAHAMED VAZEER,
SALAGERI ROAD, FORT,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102
42. JYOTHI T B
D/O BASAVARAJAPPA T
ARABILACHI POST
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 233
43. RAMESH
C/O BHEEMASHA, FDA
B.1 PWD QUATERS
11
I.B. ROAD,
CHITTAPUR
DISTRICT GULBARGA - 585 211
44. CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR C KONKAL
NEAR NARASIMHA TEMPLE
HUDDAR GALLI POST & TALUK
SHORAPUR
GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 224
45. RAVINDRAKUMAR
AT POST BENCHINCHOLI
TALUK: HUMNABAD,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 414
KARNATAKA STATE
46. SUBHASCHANDRA
S/O LINGANAGOUDA PATIL,
C/O JNANAGANGA SEVA SAMSTE (R),
DEODURGA AT POST
DEODURGA TALUK,
DISTRICT RAICHUR - 584 111
47. HANUMANTHAIAH B H
SRI VISHWABHARATHI
JUNIOR COLLEGE,
MELEKOTE, NEAR ABHAYA
ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
TUMKUR.
48. ASWATHA
C/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA L & T
#237, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
BYATARAYANAPUR,
BELLARY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 092
49. SANTHOSH KUMAR
H NO. 2-279,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE
JAGAT, GULBARGA TALUK
& DISTRICT - 585 105
12
50. SUGURESHWARA
C/O FINE SUPER DRY CLEANERS,
FORT ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 101
51. SURESHA C
C/O SOMASHEKAR (MASTER),
#362, S.L.N.NILAYA,
S.S. BUILDING,
SHIVAGANAPATHI TEMPLE ROAD,
L.G. RAMANA LAYOUT, LAGGERE,
BANGALORE - 560 058
52. RAVI DALAWAI
S/O SHARANAPPA,
PLOT NO:48, LAXMI,
SHIVATEERTH COLONY,
M M EXTENSION,
BELGAUM - 590 016
53. RAJASHEKHARA S
S/O SUBBEGOWDA,
KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDABOOHALLI POST,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 463
54. LOKESH J N
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
JAKKALAMADAGU VILLAGE,
BALAKUNTA HALLI POST,
CHICKKABALLAPUR TALUK &
DISTRICT,
55. VEENARANI P
NO.3/1, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN,
NEAR 58 BUS STOP,
TIMBERYARD LAYOUT,
BYATARAYANAPURA
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 026
56. MANJUNATHA KAMMAR
S/O VASANTHA MADHAVA,
#73, GAPED HOUSE,
13
VIDYAGIRI TEACHERS COLONY,
BAGALKOT - 587 102
57. KAVITA HULI M B
SUHASHINI NIVAS
PLT. NO.44, H.NO 11-366/28-A,
NEW RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BRHAMPUR,
GULBARGA - 585 103
58. SATHISH E
S/O ERAPPA SHETTY,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/AT RATNA GIRI BORE,
KEMPANAHALLY,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101
59. NAGENDRA N
S/O NARAYANA REDDY
MEGALAPALYA,
R/AT Y.N. HOSAKOTE POST,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 141
60. SHARADAMBI G
D/O GOVINDARAJU P
#77, 5TH CROSS, I A LANE,
OLD PENSION MOHALLA,
MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 018
61. CHANDRAPPA A P
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
ABBALAGERE POST
SHIMOGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 225
62. MANJULA K P
D/O K PUTTAPPA
AT & POST: MALUR.
(VIA) TOGARSI
TALUK: SHIKARIPUR,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 433
14
63. LEPAKSHA S R
S/O J. RAJASEKARAIAH,
RAMASWAMY NILAYA,
6TH CROSS,
PAVADIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
HIRIYUR - 572 143
CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT
64. REKHA T C
W/O NIRANJANAMURTHY M
#72/1, 2ND CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
KARNATAKA LAYOUT,
KURUBARAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 079
65. MAMATHA N
D/O NAGARAJ R
SHIVA NILAYA,
S R ROAD, AJJAMPURA
TARIKERE - 577 547
CHIKMAGALORE DISTRICT
66. NAYAZ AHMED
S/O MAHAMAD HUSSAIN,
SUBHAS NAGARA,
AJJAMPURA, TARIKERE TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 547
67. NUZHATH PARVEEN
D/O MD RILYAZUDDIN
C/O SHABBIR AHMED,
L.I.G. NO.12/A, 4TH PHASE
BADEPURE, ISHWAR NAGAR COLONY,
NEAR GANESH NAGAR,
GULBARGA - 585 105
68. LAXMI
D/O PUNDLIK RAO MITRA
POST DUBALGUNDI,
NEAR BUS STAND
TALUK HUMANABAD,
DISTRICT BIDAR - 585 418
15
69. SYED RIYAZ PASHA
S/O SYED PEER (LATE)
TIMBER MERCHANT,
EIDGHA STREET,
AREHALLI POST, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101
70. RENUKA
D/O MALLIKARJUN REDDY,
PLOT NO.-150/51
JAI ASHIRWAD,
NEAR SHETTY BUILDING
BEHIND SUN INTERNATIONAL HOTEL,
BHAGYAWANTHINAGAR,
JEVARGI ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 102
71. CHITRAKALA N
D/O NEELAMEGHA SHYAM K G
NEXT TO ELECTRIC TOWER,
MAHARAJA KATTE MAIN ROAD,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
72. RUKSANA BADSHAHA SHAIKH
D/O BADSHAHA SHAIKH
AP-KAGWAD TALUK, ATHANI
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 223
73. VEENA VASANT MOOGANUR
D/O V L MOOGANUR
NO.707, 7TH FLOOR,
RENASSANCE PARK-2,
SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 055
74. MOHANKUMAR K S
S/O LATE K SRINIVASAMURTHY
KURAMKOTE POST,
VIA THOVINAKERE
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 138
75. K SHANTHAMMA
D/O KRISHNACHARI
16
CHIKKAEGGALUR (VIA)
KUDIYANOR POST
MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130
76. UMADEVI
W/O SHARANAPPA,
H.NO:101 "YASHASHVI"
OPP: HANUMAN TEMPLE,
SHANTHINAGAR
MSK MILL ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103
77. UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 002
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
78. DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL (DEC)
IGNOU, MAIDAN GARHI,
NEW DELHI - 110 068
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
79. VINAYAKA MISSIONS UNIVERSITY
NH-47, SANKARI MAIN ROAD,
ARIYANOOR, SALEM - 636 308
TAMIL NADU,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
80. MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY
DIRECTORATE OF
DISTRICTRANCE EDUCATION
PALKALAI NAGAR,
MADURAI - 625 021
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
81. PERIYAR INSTITUTE OF
DISTRICTANCE EDUCATION
PERIYAR UNIVERSITY,
BANGALORE MAIN ROAD,
SALEM - 636 011,
TAMILNADU,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
17
82. ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY
ANNAMALAINAGAR - 608 002
TAMILNADU,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
83. BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY
DISTRICTANCE EDUCATION
COUNCIL (DEC)
PALKALAIPERUR,
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI - 620 024
TAMIL NADU,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
84. KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY,
JNANA SAHYADRI,
SHANKARAGHATTA - 577 451
SHIMOGA, KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri H Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel
for Sri K C Shanthakumar, Adv. for C/R3,
R6, R12, R15, R18, R19, R24, R25, R26, R35,
R36, R37, R39, R43-R46, R48-R50, R57,
R63, R68, R73 & R79;
Sri Reuben Jacob, Standing Counsel for R2;
Sri A C Balaraj, Adv. for C/R9, R13, R17, R28,
R38, R51, R54, R55, R59, R64, R71 & R75;
Sri R Kothwal, Adv. for R7;
Sri K Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel for
M/s Subba Rao & Co., Advs. for R27;
Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1;
Sri K S Venkataramana, Adv. for R80;
Sri Rajanna and Sri Nagegowda, Advs. for R82;
Sri B M Arun, Adv. for R3, R48, R53, R58,
R25, R54, R55 & R65;
Sri J Prashanth, Adv. for R8, R10, R11, R42,
R61 & R62; R4, R5, R7, R16, R20, R21, R23,
R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R32, R33, R34, R40,
R41, R47, R52, R56, R60, R66, R67, R69, R70,
R72, R74, R76, R83, R84, R77, R78, R81 are served]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET
18
ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.08.2009 IN APPLICATION
NOS.1663-1675/2009 PASSED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE - A AND ALLOW
THE APPLICATIONS NOS. 1663-1675/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE - B
AND ETC.,
IN WP NOS. 26535-39/09
BETWEEN:
1. DR RAJENDRA
S/O BALAPPA DODDAMANI
AGED 34 YEARS
R/OF MATRU CHAYA NIVAS
PLOT NO.33, CIB COLONY
GULBARGA - 585 103
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO.2276/2009
2. MR TAMMANNA JALIGIDAD
S/O BALAPPA,
AGED 40 YEARS
R/OF KAMAKERI VILLAGE
RAMADURGA TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 187
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO.2277/2009
3. MS NAYANATARA
D/O CHANDRAMOULI
C/O N G SHIVAGONDA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/OF H NO.1-1495/42/1-B1,
PLOT NO.233
GODUTAINAGAR,
GULBARGA - 585 102
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO.2278/2009
4. MR PRAKASH MALLOLLI
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS
R/OF GUDAGERE VILLAGE & POST
KUNDAGOL TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 581 107
19
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO.2279/2009
5. MS SUREKHA MADIHALLI
D/O BASAVARAJ
AGED 34 YEARS
R/OF PREMISES
BEHIND POSTLICE STATION
HUKKERI, HUKKERI TALUK
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 309
APPLICANT IN APPLICATION
NO.2280/2009 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri B M Shyam Prasad &
Sri P B Ajit, Advs.]
AND:
1. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOGA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. DISTRICTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL
IGNOU, MAIDAN GARHI
NEW DELHI - 110 068
4. ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY
ALAGAPPA NAGAR
KARAIKUDI - 630 003
TAMIL NADU
5. MADHURAI KAMRAJ UNIVERSITY
PALKALAI NAGAR
MADHURAI - 625 021
TAMIL NADU
20
6. MS SUMA D G
D/O GNANASHEKARA D B
MAJOR,
R/OF DUMMENAHALLI POST
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103
7. MS BHARATI BYALI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
MAJOR, RAJPUT GALLI,
BALAJI ROAD
BETGERI GADA - 582 102
8. MR PARTHESHA K V
S/O VEERDASEGOWDA
MAJOR,
R/OF KAREKERE VILLAGE
MADENUR POST
SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 220
9. MR SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O GURURAJA REVOORA
MAJOR, R/OF #12-01-360/558,
JALAL NAGAR,
RAICHUR - 584 102
10. MS CHAITRA S G
W/O MAHESHA
MAJOR,
R/OF DOOR NO.669
LATE BASVAMMA VATARA
CHANNAPATTANA VILLAGE,
PERIYAPATNA
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107
11. MR RAGHAVENDRA HULAKUND
MARDIGALLI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
R/OF NO.2186, BAILHONGAL,
BELAGAUM DISTRICT - 591 102
21
12. MR SHEKARA H R
S/O RAMANNA HALLEGERE
MAJOR, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 571 446
13. MR NAGARAJU M S
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
#38, UTHUNGA BUILDING
4TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA WEST
TUMKUR - 572 103
14. MS SHANTHA P R
W/O NANDEESH S
AGED MAJOR,
R/OF #303, 21ST CROSS,
KUVEMPU NAGAR
HASSAN - 573 201
15. MR VIKRAMA S
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR,
PATTASOMANA HALLY
PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA - 571 434
16. MR PRASANNASINGH
BHIMASINGH HAJERI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR,
BAGWAN CHAL, BAILHONGAL
TALUK BAILHONGAL
DISTRICT BELAGAVI - 591 102
17. MS MANJULA V
D/O VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR,
GOPASANDRA VILLAGE
OOLAVADI POST
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN - 563 125
22
18. MS SRINIVASA N V
S/O VEERABHADREGOWDA
AGED MAJOR,
NALLUR VILLAGE
SINGOWDANAHALLI POST
PALYA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 218
19. MR MANJUNATHA K V
C/O M S VEERABHADRAPPA
TANK BUND ROAD,
NEAR VANI VIDYALAYA,
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN - 563 125
20. MR SHIVAMURTHY NAIK N
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR, LIG-58, 1ST PHASE,
K H B COLONY, GOPALA
SHIVMOGA - 577 201
21. MR BASAVARAJ B K
S/O KARIYAPPA B
BENNEHALLI AT,
DONNEHALLI POST
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 528
22. MR SHYLESH KUMAR C
S/O CHIKKUCHAIAH,
AGED MAJOR
R/OF D NO 7/54,
PWD COLONY, KOLLIGAL,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
PIN - 571 440
23. MR NANDEESHA M
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
C/O P M RAMACHANDRAPPA
#539, KURUBARPET
MULBAGAL - 563 131
23
24. MR SRINIVASA K V
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE
AND POST, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130
25. MR MANJUNATHA R
S/O RAMACHINNAIAH B K
AGED MAJOR
C/O LAKSHMI PROVISION STORE,
GURU LAYOUT CIRCLE,
KUVEMPUNAGAR
TUMKUR - 572 703
26. MR PUTTASWAMY A C
S/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/OF ARAKERE AT POST
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 112
27. MS ASHA
D/O LAKSHMANA NAIK
MASKBAIL HERADY VILLAGE
BARKUR POST, UDUPI TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 576 210
28. MS SUNITHA G
W/O ASHOKA K M
D/O MARIGOWDA K L
BOGARAHALLI,
KOPPALU DUDDA HOBLI
KUDURUGUNDI POST
HASSAN TQ. & DIST. - 573 219
29. MS BHARATHI M T
W/O PARAMESHVARANATH A S
AGGUNDA AT POST
ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 160
30. MR NAGESH SHETTY
MAJOR
24
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
R/OF ARAVAKKI,
HADAVALLI POST,
BHATKAL TALUK
UTTAR KANNADA - 581 320
31. MS LATHA C V
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR, TYPIST,
GOVT. FIRST GRADE
COLLEGE, SIRA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137
32. MS NIRMALA H P
D/O POOVAIAH H
K ASHOKPURA,
SIDDAPURA ROAD
MADIKERI
KODAGU - 571 201
33. MS RASHMI A
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR, R/OF #217,
6TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE
5TH PHASE,
MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR
WDL ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 044
34. MR MANJU K P
S/O PAPANNA
MAJOR, R/OF KITTUR
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 617
35. MR MAHANTESH S SAVALASUR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
MAJOR, C/O PARUT HUGAR,
# NO. 5/1/289
REVANSIDDESHWAR COLONY
25
AFZALPUR
GULBARGA - 585 301
36. MS CHAYASHREE K
D/O H KRISHNAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
LAKSHMINIVAS
MANJUNATH LAYOUT
HOLEBENAVALLI POST,
PURALE, SHIMOGA - 577 222
37. MS VEENA K
D/O J KRISHNAPPA
AGED MAJOR, R/OF 133,
HALABHAVI ROAD
VARTHUR
BANGALORE - 560 087
38. MS MENAKA THAMMAIAH D
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
B1-428, MALAPRABHA
NATIOANL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE
39. MR NAGRAJ B M
S/O MUNIVEERAPPA
AGED MAJOR
BELAMARANAHALLY POST
KOLAR TQ. & DIST. - 563 133
40. MR NAGAPPA
S/O BHIMARAYA CHAWALKAR,
AGED MAJOR,
NEAR GHP SCHOOL,
MEDA GALLI, SHORAPUR
GULBARGA DIST. - 585 224
41. MR HANUMAPPA
S/O MALAPPA WAGGAR
AGED MAJOR,
C/O THAMMANNA SOUKAR
GANDHINAGAR,
26
SHORAPUR
GULBARGA - 585 224
42. MR VEDAPRAKASH
S/O GANGARAM ARYA
AGED MAJOR,
AT AND POST HALLIKHED
TALUK HUMNABAD,
BIDAR DISTRICT - 585 414
43. MS SHOBHA
AGED MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
C/O SHRIMANTH RAO KANNI
#NO.2-285, UPPAR LINE,
JAGAT, GULBARGA - 585 105
44. MS MAMATHA U
MAJOR,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
R/OF ASHRAYA DEEPA
SOMESHWAR UCHIL
MANGALORE TALUK
& DISTRICT - 575 023 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri Reuben Jacob, Standing Counsel for R2;
Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1;
Sri H Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel for
Sri B S Vijayalakshmi, Adv. for C/R6 to R12,
R14 to R26, R28 to R32, R34, R37 to R39 & R44;
Smt N Rajeshwari, Adv. for C/R40 to R43;
Sri M Narayana Reddy, Adv. for R4;
Sri K S Venkataramana, Adv. for R5;
Sri J Prashanth, Adv. for R35;
Sri B M Arun, Adv. for R37 & R38;
R27, R33, R36 are served]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
DATED 19TH AUGUST 2009 IN APPLICATIONS 2276 TO 2280/2009
VIDE ANNEXURE - C AND ALSO QUASHING THE SELECTION OF
27
THE 6TH TO 44TH RESPONDENTS BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE
ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 27TH 2009 VIDE ANNEXURE - A18 IN
ANNEXURE - A TO THE POSTS OF LECTURERS IN POLITICAL
SCIENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES AND
ETC.,
IN WP NOS. 25733-39/09
BETWEEN:
1. MR R V RAVINDRANATHA
S/O R VENKATACHALA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT LAKSHMI NARAYANA NILAYA
NEAR DHARMARAYA TEMPLE
KATARI PALYA, KOLAR - 563 101.
APPLICANT NO.1 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
2. DR RAJA M
S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA KAMBALIMATH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT PLOT NO.44
SRI MANUNATHA NILAYA
BESIDE AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE
CHENNAVAEER NAGAR,
GULBARGA - 585 104.
APPLICANT NO.2 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
3. MR SANTOSHKUMAR JADHAV
S/O A P JADAV (F.D.A.)
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
ALAND ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 101
APPLICANT NO.3 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
4. MR PAVITRA G K
W/O KANTHILAL L
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.4883/6,
SRI LAMXI VENKATESHWARA NIALYA,
BHANASHANKARI EXTENSION,
28
DAVANAGERE - 577 005
APPLICANT NO.4 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
5. MR BALAPPA MALLAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT PREMISES IN
KATTALAGERI STREET
POST GURUMATKAL
TALUK YADGIR
DISTRICT GULBARGA - 586 214
APPLICANT NO.8 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
6. MRS REKHSHIR
D/O VEERANA INDARAGI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT PREMISES OPP. TV TOWERS,
HALIYAL ROAD,
DHARWAD - 580 008
APPLICANT NO.11 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
7. MR SHIVANAND CHALWADI
S/O NINGBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT PREMISES NEAR
KANNADA PRIMARY SCHOOL,
SAWMILL ROAD, OLD DANDELI
HALIYAL TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT
APPLICANT NO.13 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri B M Shyam Prasad &
Sri P B Ajit, Advs.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
29
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSIONER
UDGOGA SOUDHA,
PARK ROAD,
BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL
IGNOU, MAIDANGARHI,
NEW DELHI
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
4. M/S VINAYAKA MISSION UNIVERSITY
SANKARI MAIN RAOD, (NH 47)
ARIYANOOR, SALAM
TAMIL NADU - 636 308
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
5. M/S PERIYAR UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY BUILDNG
SALME
TAMIL NADU - 636 011,
REP. BY TIS REGISTRAR.
6. M/S BHARATHIDASAN UNVIERSITY
PALKALAIPERUR TIRUCHIRAPPALI
TAMIL NADU - 620 024,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
7. M/S ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY
ANNAMALAI NAGAR
CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU - 608 002
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
8. MR MAHANTHESHA K T
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KURUDIHALLY,
BALENAHALLY POST
CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA
DISTRICT - 577 522
30
9. MR CHOODALINGAIAH A C
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT ARALALU VILLAGE
T BEKUPPE POST
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
10. MR JAGANNATHA B E
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT BHOOVANAHALLI
MANANGI POST, SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137.
11. MS SHAKUNTALA N
W/O VEERABHADRAIAH V
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.2, KALAPPA COMPOUND,
BEHIND BUS STOP,
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522
12. MS SAVITHA B
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT PREMISES IN NO.15,
SRI BYRAVA 6TH MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
13. MS SHYLAJA G
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITONERS
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.522,
GOLD SMITH STREET
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 571 511.
14. MS VASANTHA KUMARI C
D/O CHIKKAMALLIAH
AGED MAJOR
31
R/AT HOSAKOTE VILLAGE
KAGGALAHALLI POST
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 112.
15. MR D SHIVAKUMARA
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
AGED MAJOR
HISTORY LECTURER
SRI MARUTHI FIRST GRADE COLLEGE
HOLALUR AT POST
SHIMOGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 216
16. MR BORAIAH H J
S/O JAVARAIAH
AGED MAJOR
R/AT VADDARA KEMPAPAURA
CHOWANAKUPPA POST
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 123.
17. MR VENKATESH R
S/O RANGAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT GONIBEEDU AT POST
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 115
18. MR RAMANJINAMMA P O
D/O OBALANARASIMHAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT AGASARA BEEDI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202.
19. MR BOREGOWDA S B
S/O BOREGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.2240/21,
BCD 3RD CROSS
K R BADAVANE
CHURCH ROAD,
32
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMNAGAR - 571 501.
20. MS GAYATHRI N
W/O GOPAL N
AGED MAJOR
R/AT AKKUR POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANGARA DISTRICT - 562 138
21. MRS PARVATHAMMA M
D/O LATE MALAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT C/O B R NINGAPPA
B BEERANAHALLY VILLAGE & POST
SHIVAMOGA TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 227
22. MR MUNIRAJU M
S/O MOTAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT DODDANAYAKANAHALLI
NUTUWAY TEKAL
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137
23. MR RAVI R
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT OPP. KRISHNA MESS,
4TH CROSS
ACHUTHA RAO LAYOUT,
SHIMOGA - 577 201
24. MR T RAMESH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.28, 1ST MAIN,
ASWATHANAGAR,
RMC 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 098.
33
25. MR SHIVAKUMAR C L
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NEELAKANTESHWARA NILAYA
VIDYANAGAR
HASSAN - 573 201
26. MRS LAKSHMI G R
D/O RANGEGOWDA G
AGED MAJOR
R/AT GULLENAHALLY VILLAGE
HALEBELAGOLA POST
S BELAGOLA HOBLI
C R PATNA TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 135
27. MRS SREEDEVI R
W/O RAVEENDRA KUMAR G
AGED MAJOR
R/AT OOLAVADI VILLAGE AND POST
CHINTAHAMANI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 563 125
28. MR LINGARAJA
S/O DODDAHYDEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT VADDARHALLI KOPPALU
CHANDAGAL DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
29. MRS MANJULA
D/O LAKSHMANA REDDY
AGED MAJOR
R/AT M ATHIKUNTE VILLAGE
KANNASANDRA
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 136
30. MR VIJAYA M
S/O MUNIGANGAIAH
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.148, NEAR POST OFFICE
INDIRANAGAR, NELAMANGALA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
34
31. MR SADASHIVA MUGALI
S/O SURENDRA MUGALI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT TIPPU SULTHAN GALLI
BALEKUNDRI K.H.,
BELGAUM DISTRICT - 591 103,
APPLICANT NO.5 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
32. MR KASHINATH JADHAV
CHANDU JADHAV
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT INCHAGERI L.T-2,
INDI TALUK,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT - 586 117.
APPLICANT NO.6 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
33. MR RAMESH SATYAIGOL
S/O SHIVABASSU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT SHELAPUR
BELAVADI POST
HUKKERI TALUK,
BELGAUM - 591 209
APPLICANT NO.7 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
34. MR NAMADEV @ N S JADHAV
S/O SHIVAJI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
LECTURER IN HISTORY
N.V. PU COLLEGE
SANGAMESHWARA COLONY,
S.B. TEMPLE ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 103.
APPLICANT NO.9 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
35. MR RAVIKUMAR J
S/O JAYANNA K T
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKAGONDNAHALLI POST
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 502.
35
APPLICANT NO.10 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
36. MRS PAVITRA THIMMAPURA,
D/O AMBRISHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT TEACHERS' COLONY
KINNAL ROAD,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
APPLICANT NO.12 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009
37. MR ASHOK NINGAPPAGOL
S/O NAMADEV
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT BELKUD POST
CHIKKODI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT.
APPLICANT NO.14 IN APPLICATION
NO.2281-2294/2009 ... RESPONDENTS
[By M/s. Lawmens Chamber, Advs. for C/R30;
Sri K Subba Rao, Sr. Counsel for
M/s Subba Rao & Co., Advs. for
C/R8-R17, R19-R24 & R27;
Sri Reuben Jacob, Standing Counsel for R2;
Sri H Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel
for Smt B S Vijayalakshmi, Adv. for C/R4,
R25, R26, R28, R29, R35, R36, R37;
Sri B Amarnath, Adv. for R6;
Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1;
R3, R5, R7, R18, R31, R32, R33, R34 are served]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
DATED 19.08.2009, IN APPLICATIONS 2281, 2282, 2283, 2284, 2288,
2291, 2293/2009 AND ALSO QUASHING THE SELECTION OF THE
R8 TO R30 BY THE R2, VIDE ORDE DATED 19.02.2009, AS PER
ANNEXURE - A22 IN ANNEXURE - A TO THE POSTS OF LECTURERS
IN HISTORY WITH THE GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES
AND ETC.,
36
IN WP NOS. 25740-50/09
& 26138/13
BETWEEN:
1. MR CHANDRAPPA N
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT HONNURAMMA NAGARA,
HOLEHONNUR POST,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.3 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009
2. MR. GAJANAN SAMBA MALI
S/O SAMBA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/OF SHEDBAL POST,
ATHANI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.6 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
3. MR. VITHOBA
S/O BHEEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/OF PASALADI POST,
PETH AMMAPURA,
SHORAPUR,
GULBARGA DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.1 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
4. MR. MAHESH K. KOCHIGERI
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT CAR STREET,
RAM NAGAR, H.B. HALLI,
BELLARY DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.5 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
5. MR. FAKKIRAIAH KURTHAKOTI
S/O BASALINGAYYA
37
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, SADASHIVANAGAR,
BHAIRIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBLI
(APPLICANT NO.7 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
6. MR. GUDDAPPA HONKAN
S/O GUTTEPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/OF KONDJI AT POST
HANAGAL TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.8 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
7. MR. ASHOK KALLAPPA KOULAGI
S/O KOLLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/OF F-23 QUARTERS,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
DHARWAD
(APPLICANT NO.13 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
8. MR. ASHOK REVU RATHOD
S/O REVU RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/OF HANCHINAL AT
ALIYABAD POST,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.10 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
9. MR. SHEKHARAPPA Y
S/O SHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT HALUVAGALU POST
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.9 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
10. MR. GOUDAPPA
S/O GIRIMALLANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
38
R/OF NADI POST,
INGALAGAON,
ATHANI TALUK,
BELGAUM DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.14 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
11. MR. NAGAPPA MUGADUR
S/O SANNAPPA MUGADUR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT ALADAKATTI POST,
HAVERI DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.12 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
12. MR. CHANDRE GOWDA B G
S/O B G BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT BELVANTHANAKOPPA POST,
TENNEKOPPA, SORABA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
(APPLICANT NO.4 IN APPLICATIONS
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009) ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri B M Shyam Prasad &
Sri P B Ajit, Advs. for P1 to P11;
Sri I G Gachchinamath, Adv. for P12]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION,
UDYOGA SOUDHA,
PARK ROAD,
BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
39
3. THE DIRECTOR,
DISTRICTANCE EDUCATION
COUNCIL, MAIDAN GARHI,
NEW DELHI - 110 068
4. THE REGISTRAR,
VINAYAKA MISSIONS UNIVERSITY
SANKARI MAIN ROAD
NH-47, ARIYANOOR
SALEM,
TAMILNADU - 636 308
5. THE REGISTRAR,
PERLYAR UNIVERSITY
SALEM,
TAMIL NADU - 636 011
6. THE REGISTRAR
BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY
TIRUCHIRAPPALI, TAMILNADU
7. THE REGISTRAR,
ALAGAPPA UNIVERSITY
ALAGAPPA NAGAR,
KARAIKUDI
TAMILNADU - 630 003
8. MS. CHANDRAKALA K.S
D/O SHIVAPPA K B
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KABBANAHALLI
SOONAGAHALLI POST,
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT
9. MR. NAGENDRAIAH
S/O NINGAPPA
MAJOR,
R/AT BOMMATHANAHALLY
PAVAGADA,
TUMKUR - 561 202
10. MR. RAJEEVA KUMAR,
S/O KEMPAIAH S.S
AGED MAJOR,
40
R/AT SOBAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHIGERE POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130
11. MR. REVANASIDDAPPA K.B.
S/O BASAPPA KABBUR
AGED MAJOR
R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST,
DAVANAGERE TALUK &
DISTRICT - 577 514
12. MR. NAGARAJA L
S/O LAKSHMAIAH M
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT PAKARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HUDKULA POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
13. MR. BELLULH KOTRESHA
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KANCHIKERE POST
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 125
14. MR. SHEIK HYDER ALI D S
S/O SHEIK AHMED D M
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT 1ST MAIN, 3RD B CROSS,
SREE RANGA NILAYA,
HANUMANTHAPURA
TUMKUR - 572 103
15. MS. N.R. VANI
D/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA N
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 149, 5TH BLOCK,
BEHIND NEW MASJID
NATARAJA ROAD,
BAGEPALLI - 562 107
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
41
16. MR. BASAVARAJU H N
S/O NANJUNDE GOWDA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT HONNAMARANAHALLI
NUGGEHALLI, C.R. PATNA,
HASSAN - 573 131
17. MR. ASHOK K A
S/O ANANDAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KAMAGONDANAHALLI
PATTANAYAKANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
18. MR. HANUMANTHAPPA K M
S/O KULAGATTE MADAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT BELALAGERE POST,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN - 577 231
19. MS. J.R. GEETHA
D/O A.S. RAME GOWDA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 886/1,
DHANYATHA NILAYA,
SIS COLONY,
NEW THIPPASANDRA COLONY,
BANGALORE - 560 075
20. MR. S. YOGESHWARAPPA
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT DANDIGENAHALLI
KALAGATTA POST,
HOLALKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
PIN - 577 518
21. MR. NAGARAGANTI GANTEPPA
SHETTY
S/O N. MANJUNATH SHETTY, SVK
AGED MAJOR
42
R/AT AMMANAKERE,
KAKKUPPI POST,
KUDLIKI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 135
22. MR. BABU VENKATESH
PRASAD GOWDA K.K
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.24, 2ND CROSS,
BYRAHANUMAIAH LAYOUT,
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEAR BCC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040
23. MR. S. MANJUNATHA
S/O K. SIDDAIAH
AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. R 131,
SIRSI CIRCLE POLICE QUARTERS,
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018
24. MR. MAHIBOOBALI NABISAB
S/O NABISAB
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT MAHIBOOBALI
NABISAB SOUDAGAR,
NP - IJERI, JEWARGI TALUK,
GULBARGA - 585 310
25. MS. SOWMYA S MURTHY,
W/O VISHWAS S KUMAR
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT PARVATHI, NO.1216
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040
26. MR. P.T. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O P.T. THURUVAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT LOKIKERE POST,
DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT
43
27. MR. S. VARADARAJA
S/O SHIVALINGA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.45/B,
BEHIND MANDIRA SCHOOL,
NEW TOWN,
BHADRAVATHI - 577 301
28. MS. T. MANGALA
W/O M. KRISHNA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.123, 5TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, KAVERINAGAR,
BSK, 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 070
29. MRS. GUNASHEELA C
W/O K. RAVIKUMAR
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 912,
5TH STAGE, 2ND PHASE,
1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
BEML LAYOUT,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 098
30. MRS. LATHA
W/O RAVIKUMAR M.N
AGED MAJOR,
R/ AT SANNEMALLEGOWDA
STREET, PETE
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA
31. MR. HANUMANTHAIAH M
S/O MARIYAMMA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT MARGONDANAHALLY
SULIKERE POST,
KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
PIN - 560 060
44
32. MR. MADHU SUDANA E
S/O EREGOWDA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT AROHALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN - 570 010
33. MR. ADIVAPPA N
S/O NARASIMHAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT VIRUPASAMUDRA POST,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 203
34. MR. NAVEENKUMAR S T
S/O TULASIRAMEGOWDA S K
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT SHAPUR POST AND VILLAGE,
KOLAR - 563 101
35. MS. MAMATHA
D/O NINGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KALLUR CROSS
MATHIGHATTA POST,
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 220
36. MR. VENKATESH K T
S/O THIMME GOWDA T
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT INDIRA NAGAR,
S. KARIYAPPA ROAD,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA - 562 117
37. MR. DODDEGOWDA K R
S/O RUDREGOWDA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KUNDUR VILLAGE & POST,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 423
38. MR. YOGESHA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
45
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT DEGGANAHALLY
THIPPUR POST,
K.R. NAGAR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602
39. MR. SURESH KUMAR
GAVISIDDAPPA
S/O GAVISIDDAPPA SONNAD,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT SARDAR GALLI,
KOPPALA - 583 231
40. MR. MADAPPA
S/O RAMACHANDRE GOWDA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT C/O P. NANJUNDEGOWDA,
ALAMBDIKAVAL
AKKIHEBBAL,
H K R PET TALUK,
MANYDA DISTRICT
41. MR. THIMMEGOWDA T K
S/O KARIBASAPPA T
AGED MAJOR
R/AT THOREMAVINAHALLI POST
BANASANDA VIA
TURUVEKERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
42. MR. BHUVANESHWARA V B
S/O BANGARAPPA VADDI
AGED MAJOR
R/AT KODAKANI POST
SORAB TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 429
43. MR. S. MAHESH
S/O B. SOMANNA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT JODITHIMMAPURA
BIRUR POST,
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKMAGALUR - 577 116
46
44. MR. G. MALLESHA
S/O GOWDAPPA
R/AT NO.126, 4TH BLOCK,
RAMASWAMY LAYOUT,
NANJANGUD - 571 301
45. MR. C. VEERANNA
S/O CHIKKANNA
DRAKSHITHOTA SATHYAMANGALA
SWANDAYNAHALLI POST,
TUMKUR - 572 104
46. MRS. B. SOBHA RANI
W/O C SURESH
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.21/5, 1ST CROSS,
NEHRU COLONY,
OPP: POST OFFICE,
BELLARY - 583 103
47. MR. K.N. LAXMIKANTH
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOW
TO THE PETITIONERS
C/O KRISHNASETTY
ANUGRAHA NILAYA,
2ND FLOOR, BEHIND
SENT MERYS SCHOOL,
KUVEMPU NAGAR
CHIKKAMAGALORE - 577 101
48. MS. SALEEMUNNISA SALMA
BEGUM ANSARI
W/O P MOHAMMED HUSSAIN,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT NO.1-4-157/155,
AMARESHWAR LAYOUT,
ASHAPUR ROAD,
RAICHUR - 584 101
49. MS. BHAVANI L
D/O L.V. LAKSHMANAN
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 289,
VALAGERA HALLI, K.S. TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 060
47
50. MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR B,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT C/O S B JAWALKAR,
INDHIRANAGAR,
NEAR YALAMMA TEMPLE,
SHAHAPUR
GULBARGA - 585 223
51. MS. BHAGYALAKSHMI V
D/O C. VENKATESHAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/OF BANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELLASANDRA POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR - 563 114
52. MS. SUSHMA R
D/O L. RAMALINGAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO. 18/2,
RANGANATHAPURA MAIN ROAD,
18TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 560 003
53. MS. SUJATA KADLI
D/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT 2ND CROSS, C BLOCK,
BASAWESHWARA NAGAR,
HAVERI - 581 110
54. MS. VINUTHA L
D/O LAKSHMINARAYANA H
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT YELDUR,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR - 563 138
55. MS. V. VANI
D/O C. VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
48
R/AT NO.11/96,
VINAYAKA TEMPLE STREET,
KOLLEGAL - 571 440
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
56. MS. SANTHOSHKUMARI N
D/O MARISWAMY
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT SATHYANARAYANA NILAYA,
PARVATHI NAGAR,
A MAIN ROAD
BELLARY - 583 101
57. MS. NETHRAVATHI K
D/O KALAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT KPTCL COLONY
DIVISION OFFICE
SUBHASH NAGAR
MANDYA - 571 401
58. MS. M.N. ROOPA,
D/O NANJAIAH
AGED MAJOR
R/AT MAVUKERE,
DEVALAPURA POST,
TUMKUR TALUK - 572 132
59. MR. ASHWATH YADAV G S,
S/O SURYANARAYANA G K
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT GUTTIKKATTE
GOLLARAHALLI,
JANTIKOLLALU POST,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
PIN - 577 554
60. MR. NATARAJA D R
S/O SANNARANGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
R/OF HIREMALALI POST
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
PIN - 577 221
49
61. MS. DHAKSHAYANI M DONGRE,
W/O S.N. MALLAPPA
AGED MAJOR
C/O A.T. PUTTASWAMY,
R/AT 4TH CROSS,
2ND STAGE, MALLESHWARAM
SHIMOGA - 577 201
62. MR. M GANGARAJA
S/O MUNISWAMI
AGED MAJOR
R/AT C GUNDALAHALLI VILLAGE
RAJENDRA HALLI POST,
MULBAGAL POST
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 132
63. MR. ASHOK CHALUVADI
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED MAJOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT E-2, PWD QUARTERS,
OPP. TAHASILDAR QUARTERS,
I WARD, HARAPANAHALLI,
DAVENGERE DISTRICT
(APPLIANT NO.2 IN APPLICATION
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
64. MR. CHANDRE GOUD B G
S/O B G BASAVANATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT BELAVANTHANAKOPPA POST,
TENNEKOPPA, SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
(APPLIANT NO.4 IN APPLICATION
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009)
65. MS. LALITHA S VANIKYAL,
W/O SHANKARAPPA L VANIKYAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
HEAD MISTRESS,
GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL
KOLIWAD,
YADGIRI DISTRICT
50
(APPLIANT NO.11 IN APPLICATION
NO.1397 TO 1410/2009) ... RESPONDENTS
[By Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1;
Sri Reuben Jacob, Standing Counsel for R2;
Sri H Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel for
Smt B S Vijayalakshmi, Adv. for C/R4,
R9 to R11, R17, R21, R22, R26, R30, R31,
R33, R36, R41, R45, R49, R52, R59 & R60;
Sri Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel
for Sri M R Shailendra, Adv. for R11, R13,
R18, R26, R27, R32, R36, R37, R38, R40,
R43, R44, R53, R59 & R60;
Sri M Manohar, Adv. for R12;
Sri M Narayana Reddy, Adv. for R7;
Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Sr. Counsel for
M/s Ravivarma Kumar & Assts., Advs. for R15;
Sri M Shivappa, Adv. for R25;
Sri M Chowda Reddy, Adv. R34;
M/s Nagaraj & Assts., Advs. for R35;
Sri Chalapathi, Adv. for R51;
Sri Prashanth & Sri Kamaraj, Advs. for
R21, R39 & R50;
Sri B M Arun, Adv. for R12, R17, R31, R34 & R62;
R3, R5, R6, R8, R14, R16, R20, R23, R24,
R42, R46, R47, R48, R54, R55, R56, R57,
R58, R61, R63, R65 are served;
R64 transposed as petitioner No.12 as per
order dt: 19.6.2013 and amendment carried out]
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
DATED 19.08.2009 IN APPLICATIONS NO. 1397, 1399, 1401, 1402,
1404, 1405, 1406, 1408, 1409, 1410/2009 AND ALSO QUASHING
THE SELECTION OF THE 8TH TO 62ND RESPONDENTS BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2009 AS PER ANNEXURE
- A22, IN ANNEXURE - A TO THE POSTS OF LECTURERS IN
ECONOMICS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES
AND ETC.,
51
IN WP NO. 4309/10
BETWEEN:
BHARATH KUMAR A
S/O RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT SRI SOWRABHA
SAMETHADKA
PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
PIN - 574 210 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri Vishwanatha Poojary K, Adv. - Absent]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
UDYOGA SOUDHA
RESIDENCY PARK HOUSE
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1;
Sri Reuben Jacob, Standing Counsel for R2]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED
11.01.2010 IN APPLCIATION NO. 4320/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE - A
AND ETC.,
52
IN WP NO. 28567/09
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
UDYOG SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... PETITIONER
[By Sri T Narayana Swamy, Adv.]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
(HIGHER EDUCATION)
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. SRI VINOD D K
S/O SRI D S KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.570, 15TH CROSS,
SRI RAMPURA II STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 023
4. ANUPAMA SABHAPATHY
MAJOR
NO.26, MATHRUSHRI, 2ND CROSS
SHRI VENKATESHWARA GRIHA
NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA LAYOUT
BASAVESWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
5. MANJUNATHA M S
S/O SRI SREEKANTE GOWDA
MAJOR
53
GURUMATT STREET
SALIGRAMA POST
K R NAGAR
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 604
6. FAHMEEDA P
MAJOR
NO.303/13-1, 19TH MAIN ROAD,
18TH CROSS ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040
7. SRI M SRINIVASA CHOWDARY
MAJOR
ROOM NO.239,
MAHANANDI HOSTEL
S K UNIVERSITY
ANANTHAPURA
A.P. - 515 003.
8. SRI MAHANANDA V HIREMATH
MAJOR
C/O V.G. HIREMATH
NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE
BESIDE GENESH MANDIR
HUNGUND
HUNGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 118
9. SRI M KIRAN
S/O SRI MARAPPA
MAJOR
ANUGRAHA NILAYA
TAVARAGHATTA
SHANKARGHATTA
KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 451.
10. SRI SURESH S P
S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA S. P
MAJOR
SREEDHARA GADDE POST
BELLARY TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 583 103
54
11. SRI PARASHIVAMURTHY H S
MAJOR
HALASURU VILLAGE
KADAHALLI POST
SATHANUR HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 126
12. JYOTI ANNARAO
MAJOR
NO.4-601/16C, 5TH CROSS
M B NAGAR
GULBARGA - 585 105
13. SRI VIJAYA KUMAR T
MAJOR
SESHAKRUPA, 4TH CROSS
CHURCH EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
14. SRI MOHAMMED SHARIEF HANGAL
MAJOR
AT BALUR POST AKKI ALUR
HANAGAL TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
15. SMT PADMINI H A
W/O H D VEDA PRASAD
NO.915/A BEHIND SADAL KOTE
K.R.PURAM,
HASSAN - 573 201
16. NAGAMANI K A
MAJOR
C/O RANGANATHA SHARMA
RETIRED TEACHER,
NO.1727/2, 53RD CROSS,
VIDYANAGARA EXTENSION,
BEHIND S.V.P. COLLEGE
SARJAPUR
ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE - 572 125
17. SAVITHA PATTANSHETTI
MAJOR
55
SIDDALINGESHWAR NILAYA,
POST SHIRUR
BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT
18. SRI KESHAV PRAHLAD CHAR
MAJOR
C/O RAMESH BHAT
MANKULI, N H 17
PUSHPANJALI CROSS
BHATKAL
KARWAR DISTRICT - 581 230
19. MERCY VICTORIA J
MAJOR
NO.5306, NANDI DEEPA
124, NEAR MARUTHI
DENTAL COLLEGE
OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076
20. SRI C JAYAPPA
S/O M CHITRAPPA
MAJOR
DEVARAHOSAHALLY
TALIKATTE POST
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 539.
21. SMT KAVITHA H S
C/O SAROJAMMA
LECTURER NO.66,
UPPARAHALLI
MYLAPURA ROAD,
NEAR SAW MILL
T.B.EXTENSION,
NAGAMANGALA,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432
22. SRI BASAVARAJU B
S/O SRI BASAVARAJU P
MAJOR
VIJAYAPURA KUKKUR POST
TALAKADU HOBLI,
T NARASIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT.
56
23. SRI MALLIKARJUN SIDDARAMAPPA
MAJOR
C/O REVAPPA S AERI
H.NO.8-1185,
AYYARWADI GUNJ RAOD,
GULBARGA - 585 104
24. VASANTHA S
MAJOR
PLOT NO.2106, 4TH CROSS,
SHARADA KRUPA
GANAPTHI LAYOUT
VIDYANAGAR, SHIMOGA
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 203.
25. RAMYA C R
MAJOR
NO.107, APRAMEYA,
1ST B CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
NIVEDITHA NAGAR
MYSORE - 570 023
26. SRI SHANKARA MURTHY
MAJOR
NO.639, 3RD CROSS,
KAMAKSHI NILAYA
9TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALOER - 560 072.
27. SRI RAJESH AJAB SINGH
MAJOR
1ST FLOOR BELGUNDI COMPLEX,
NEAR AUTO AVENUE GARBAGE
OPP. RTO SEDAM ROAD,
GULBARGA - 585 105
28. SRI PARASHURAM MURTHY G
MAJOR
NO.32, 11TH MAIN ROAD,
E BLOCK, J P NAGAR
MYSORE - 577 008
57
29. VANAJA K S
D/O K S SADASHIVAIAH
MAJOR
RETD. HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER
4TH CROSS, VISHWANNA LAYOUT,
SHANTINAGAR,
TUMKUR - 572 102
30. POORNIMA K V
D/O H VEERANNA
MAJOR
HARIHARAPPANAPALYA
HULIKUNTE POST,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129
31. ANUPAMA DHAVALE
MAJOR
C/O N.K. DHAVALE
SAI KRISHNA NIVAS
MUNISHWAR NAGAR,
UNKAL CROSS,
HUBLI - 580 031
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
32. SRI JAGADEVAPPA CHANDRAGERI
MAJOR
A.P. BELGALPET
TALUK HANAGAL
DISTRICT HAVERI.
33. SRI CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S
MAJOR
DOOR NO.98,
JIJAMATHA COLONY,
HARLAPUR GUTTUR POST
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601
34. SRINIVASAPPA G
S/O SRI GOVINDAPPA
MAJOR
HOSAHALLI BUKKAPATNA POST
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 115
58
35. SRI RAJASEKHARAYYA MATHAPATI
MAJOR, AT POST KUDAL SANGAM
HUNGUND, BAGALKOT - 587 116
36. SRI BASAVARAJU N
S/O NARASEGOWDA
ILLENAHALLI, CHINAKURALI
HO PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427
37. SRI PRASHANTH K MORE
S/O KUMARASWAMY MORE
NEAR VITTAL TEMPLE,
9TH WARD, SANDUR POST
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 119
38. SRI DAYANANDA SAGAR G S
S/O SIDDALIGAIAH G.K.
GANADALU VILLAGE & POST
MANDYA TALUK AND
DISTRICT - 571 405 ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri H Kantha Raja, Adv. for C/R3;
Sri K N Nagaraju, Adv. for R5, R9 & R38;
Sri J Prashanth & Sri Kamaraju, Advs. for
R4, R6, R7, R10 to R14, R16, R19 to R21,
R24, R26, R29, R37, R11 & R35;
Sri S B Hebballi, Adv. for R17;
Smt S Susheela, AGA for R1 & R2;
R8, R15, R22, R23, R25, R27, R30, R31,
R32, R33, R36, R18, R28, R34 are served]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT SEEKING ORDER, THE ORDER DATED
19.08.2009, PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.861/2009, IN DECLARING
THAT, THE SERVICE WEIGHTAGE GIVEN TO THE GUEST
LECTURER AS ILLEGAL AT POINT 9 OF PART III CASES IS
CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2013 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
59
ORDER
In this batch of writ petitions, writ petitioners have questioned the correctness of the common order dated 19- 08-2009 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore in Application Nos 953-959 of 2009 and connected cases.
2. Writ petitioners are also aggrieved by the selection list prepared by the second respondent - Karnataka Public Service Commission [for short KPSC or the Commission'], which had prepared the list of candidates selected for being appointed to the post of Lecturers in the Government Junior Grade Colleges in the State of Karnataka in respect of subjects - Sociology - 184 candidates [subject matter of WP Nos 26902-09 of 2009], Political Science - 179 candidates [subject matter of WP Nos 26535-39 of 2009], History - 180 candidates [subject matter of WP Nos 25733- 39 of 2009] and in the subject of Economics - 205 60 candidates [subject matter of WP Nos 25740-50 of 2009], English and other subjects.
3. Writ petitioners were also aspirants for these posts and had filed their applications in response to the Notification dated 24-12-2007 published by the Commission inviting applications for selection to as many as 2550 posts of lecturers in government first grade colleges in the state in different subjects. Writ petitioners had all participated in the interview conducted by the Commission and their performance has been assessed by the Commission. The Commission had interviewed all eligible persons who had applied to these posts and who were found eligible in terms of the qualifications prescribed as per the Karnataka Education Department Services [Collegiate Education Department] [Recruitment] Rules, 1964 [for short 'General Rules'] and the amendments made to 1964 Rules from time to time read with the Karnataka Education Department Services [Collegiate Education Department] [Special Recruitment] Rules, 1993 [for short 61 '1993 Special Rules'] and amendments to these Rules from time to time.
4. Under the General Rules, 50% of the available posts in the cadre and recruitment rules to the post of lecturers were to be filled up by direct recruitment and other 50% being by way of promotion. The requisite qualification stipulated that persons who have obtained the minimum percentage of 55% marks or its equivalent grade in the master's degree in the concerned subject and also must have obtained 50% marks in the eligibility test for lecturership conducted by the designated agency, which means that 50% in National Eligibility Test [NET] conducted by the University Grants Commission or CSIR or State Level Eligibility Test [SLET] conducted by the state government or any authority accredited by the University Grants Commission [UGC]. However, in so far as passing of the NET is concerned, a relaxation was made in favour of persons who have acquired MPhil degree in the subject insofar as teaching in the undergraduate level is concerned, 62 granting exemption from the requirement of passing NET, with a minimum of 50% marks to those possessing M.Phil degree in the subject, and so qualified before the last date for submitting application.
5. The 1993 Special Rules also provided that the candidates should be of the age limit between 21 and 35 years, but relaxation was made in the age up to 10 years in favour of candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and Group - A and for a period of three years in case of candidates belonging to Group - B & C.
6. The 1993 Special Rules also provided for marking system for selection and under Rule 6A total of 14 marks was earmarked for interview, 2 marks for personality, 3 marks for power of expression, 3 marks for smartness and initiative, 3 marks for general knowledge and other traits including the knowledge of the subject which has a bearing on the job content of the post for which recruitment is being made. The object of the interview was to assess the 63 suitability of the candidates for appointment to the post of lecturers.
7. Rule - 6B - prescribes about preparation of selected candidates list, on the basis of aggregate percentage of marks secured in master's degree in the relevant subject and the marks secured in the interview and to prepare in the order of merit a list of candidates in respect of each subject eligible for appointment.
8. Under the proviso to Rule 6-B of the Special Rules, candidates whose names figure in the list prepared by the selection authority are entitled to what is known as weightage of providing or adding additional marks under three categories - (a), (b) and (c) - and in respect of category
(a), candidates having teaching experience in any college affiliated to any university established by law in India including a candidate who has served as part-time lecturer in government first grade colleges of the department of collegiate education, weightage at the rate of 1% for each 64 completed academic year is to be added to the average percentage of marks secured by the candidate concerned in the master's degree examination in the subject concerned; under category (b), a weightage of 3%, 2% or 1% shall be added to the average percentage of marks secured by the candidate in the master's degree examination in the subject concerned, if he/she had obtained first or second or third rank respectively in the master's degree examination, as declared by the university; and under category (c), candidates who possess PhD should be given weightage of 2% and candidates who possess MPhil degree to be given 1% as weightage. However, the further proviso to the rule giving weightage of marks stipulates that the total weightage added to the average percentage of marks under categories (a), (b) and (c) of the first proviso shall not exceed 5%.
9. Supplementing the stipulations indicated in the general rules and special rules, KPSC has issued information and special instructions in its notification 65 dated 24-12-2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates. A copy of this notification has been produced before the tribunal as Annexure-A102 to the Application No 1663-75 of 2009, corresponding to WP Nos 26902-14 of 2009. The last date for submitting filled up applications was indicated as 31-1-2008 in this notification. The applications should be in the prescribed format prescribed by the commission and same can be submitted at the branches of notified DCC bank and apex bank and at the main office of the commission at Bangalore or its local offices at Mysore, Belgaum and Gulbarga. It is also indicated that selection would be made in consonance with the general and special rules and based on the merit of the candidates, in the sense, based on the aggregate percentage of marks obtained by the candidates adding up the percentage in the qualifying examination viz., post- graduation in the subject concerned, marked obtained in the interview and the weightage of marks. It is also indicated that the percentage of weightage of marks in the 66 aggregate a candidate can obtain under categories (a), (b) and (c) of the first proviso to Rule 6-B of the special rules shall not exceed 5 i.e. the total percentage of weightage cannot exceed 5%. The notification also indicated about the age limitation, scale of pay, nature of the employment, providing for caste certificate and certificate of rural background, disability certificate etc etc. The notification also indicated by way of special instructions under para-14 that copies of certificates regarding caste, educational qualifications etc., should also be produced along with the application before the last date fixed for receipt of applications. It is also indicated that a candidate should not apply for more than one post in the same application, but can apply in different applications for different posts. The notification warned the candidates stating that canvassing in any form should invite disqualification. However, the last date fixed for receipt of applications was subsequently extended by the commission from 31-1-2008 to 20-2-2008.
67
10. Para 7.1 in the notification dated 24-12-2007 provides for instructions to the candidates relating to educational qualifications. It is indicated that before the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, the candidates should be holder of master's degree ion the subject concerned with a minimum of 55% of marks with relaxation in favour of candidates belonging to SC/ST etc., to be at 50% and must have passed NET conducted by UGC or CSIR or SLET conducted by the state government or any authority accredited by the UGC. The proviso regarding relaxation requires exemption from passing of NET with a minimum of 50% marks in respect of candidates who possess PhD or MPhil degree in the subject concerned. It is based on such parameters, applications were received from candidates the same were processed by the commission.
11. While the petitioners in these writ petitions are persons who were applicants before the tribunal, KPSC has 68 also preferred WP No 28567 of 2009, questioning the correctness of the common order passed by the tribunal in all such applications before it, wherein the selection by KPSC in different subjects was under challenge. But, in so far as it related to the order passed in Application No 861 of 2009 is concerned, wherein the challenge was confined to selection based on providing weightage to candidates who had claimed it on the basis of teaching experience and who were termed as guest lecturers and also the Respondent Nos. 5 to 39 in the application No.861/2009 before the Tribunal had obtained M.Phil degree from Alagappa University in Tamil Nadu, which university did not have recognition to impart distance education course in M.Phil. The subject involved in this application was regarding selection of persons to be appointed as Lecturers in 'English' subject. The Tribunal having ruled that such persons having worked as guest lecturers are not eligible for addition of any percentage of marks as weightage, as neither the special rules provides for giving such weightage 69 to persons with experience as guest lecturers nor the notification issued by the commission inviting applications had mentioned so.
12. WP No 4309 of 2010 is directed against the order passed by the tribunal in Application No 4320 of 2009 by a separate order dated 4-1-2010, rejecting the stand of the applicant that selection notification dated 27-2-2007 published by KPSC to be quashed, in so far as it related to the candidates who acquired MPhil degree in the year 2007 and 2008 awarded by Alagappa university and other universities, for the reason that it was not approved by the Distance Education Council [DEC], and the tribunal, following its main judgment dated 19-8-2009 rendered in Application Nos 953-59 of 2009 and connected cases, rejected the application. The applicant-writ petitioner was an aspirant for the post of lecturer in political sciences.
13. The applicants before the tribunal had raised various grounds to attack the selection process and sought for 70 invalidation of the same. The tribunal, based on the challenge posed to selection in different applications, had categorized the applications into three parts. The first part of applications related to challenge to the selection list, inter alia, on the ground that MPhil degrees awarded to the respondents-selected candidates by universities which had no approval or accreditation by the DEC are not valid. The second category related to applications posing challenge to government order dated 23-11-2006 effecting amendment to the earlier government order dated 9-1-2003 and providing for relaxation from appearance in NET in respect of candidates who possess PhD or MPhil degrees. The third category of applications were those wherein individual grievances had been made out regarding KPSC not adhering to the stipulated norms in respect of many selected candidates.
14. In so far as the weightage or otherwise of MPhil degrees was under challenge, which were obtained by some of the selected candidates from Alagappa university, Periyar 71 university, Bharathidasan university, Vinayaka mission university, Madurai Kamaraj university and Annamalai university, is on the premise that all these universities are located in Tamilnadu state; that they had opened their study centres in the state of Karnataka without the permission of the state government, wherein the selected candidates, arrayed as respondents, had undergone their course of study in the state of Karnataka; that DEC had not given approval to MPhil degree conferred by these universities under the distance education mode and therefore it violated DEC guidelines and UGC regulations, under which DEC had been recognized as an authority for laying down norms and standards and therefore such degrees obtained from these universities in turn are in violation of UGC regulations and further that whereas the DEC guidelines has stipulated that the duration of MPhil course by distance education mode should be for a minimum period of two years, all these universities had stipulated the duration of the course as only one year. 72
15. While learned counsel for applicants had elaborated the main grounds referred to above, calling in aid many authorities and by making submissions with different hues and shades, the applications were strongly resisted by KPSC by urging various contentions and so also some of the private respondents and some of the universities who conferred MPhil degrees by distance education mode and so also the state government.
16. It was strongly urged before the Tribunal on behalf of the KPSC that the applications are not maintainable for the reason that the applicants who applied for the posts under the notification and having participated in the selection process without any protest, cannot turn around and challenge the selection process only because they found that they were not getting selected. It was also urged that validity of the Degrees possessed by the private respondents insofar as M.Phil Degree is concerned, cannot be gone into by the Tribunal. In this regard, it was urged 73 that the guidelines issued by the DEC on which considerable reliance had been placed by the applicants are only draft norms in ensuring quality in distance learning system; that based on this, it cannot be said that M.Phil Degree of one year course awarded by the private institutions imparted through distance education mode is not valid, as the duration of the course is two years; that the draft norms assuming it is upheld, can only be prospective and also that the students who have undergone course in Study Centres set up outside the State in which the respondent - Universities are located cannot have any bearing on the Degree conferred by them on students who had studied in Study Centres for the reason that ultimately the DEC's guidelines being only directory and not mandatory. It is only on communication to the UGC such Degrees have been approved and not frowned upon; that the method of aggregating marks cannot be said that it does not have a definite and relevant purpose as it is only a method of recognizing the merit of the applicants through 74 the performances in the examination and as reflected in the marks obtained in the examination and the fact that marks obtained by the students from different Universities are all treated alike cannot by itself be a detracting factor as KPSC was bound to treat all persons with requisite qualification in a uniform manner; that the last date for receipt of the application had been extended from 31.01.2008 to 20.02.2008 as per the request made by the Government of Karnataka and not to give any benefit to candidates who have obtained M.Phil Degrees through distance education mode from the Universities located outside the State of Karnataka as contended by the applicants.
17. It is also urged that the KPSC was not competent to sit in Judgment over the Degrees conferred by recognized Universities and set up by an Act of Parliament or an act of the State and the KPSC had no choice in the matter so long the applicants possessed Degrees conferred by the Universities conforming to the norms as stipulated under the rules and the notifications.
75
18. It was also urged on behalf of the KPSC that while the KPSC cannot go into the validity of the Degree issued by the University established by law, if University itself has been derecognized, the KPSC was prepared to examine this aspect; that the applicants were unable to make good that any University which had granted M.Phil Degrees based on which weightage was given to such applicants and exemption from NET was also given, has been derecognized.
19. It was also urged that even as per the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [for short 'UGC Act'], three categories of universities that is established under an Act of Parliament, an Act of State Legislation and University which is conferred a deemed University status under section 3 of the UGC Act, are all Universities which are empowered to award Degrees and the Degrees which are questioned in the applications are all awarded by the Universities set up under the State Act or deemed 76 University under section 3 of the UGC Act and therefore no exception can be taken to M.Phil Degree awarded by these Universities.
20. Insofar as awarding of marks for service weightage is concerned, it was urged on behalf of the KPSC that it has been done only in accordance with relevant rules and on the basis of service certificates produced by the candidates. It was also contended that counter signature by the director of Collegiate Education is not a mandatory requirement as that is not the qualification whereas teaching experience is the qualification. It was however clarified that full time lecturers of private colleges are eligible for service weightage, it was not so in respect of part time lecturers in private colleges. It was only part time lecturers in Government Colleges who are eligible for service weightage. It is also urged that certificates obtained after cut off date by itself cannot make any difference as, it is in continuation of the provisional certificate and the students had completed their Degree before the cut off date 77 and a mere issue of Degree certificate later does not in any way disqualify a candidate.
21. It was also contended that while under section 22 of the UGC Act, it is only the prerogative of the University established by law to confer a Degree, it was not within the province of Indira Gandhi National Open University [for short 'IGNOU'] to recognize or derecognize the Degree conferred by the University in accordance with section 22 of the UGC Act and a non approval by DEC - a creature under the statute of IGNOU to say about validity or otherwise of the Degree conferred by the University established under law. It was therefore urged on behalf of the KPSC that all applications should be dismissed.
22. Similar contentions were urged on behalf of the State Government and the locus of the applicants to question the selection process for having participated in the same was strongly highlighted placing reliance on many Judgments of the Supreme Court. Primacy of the provisions of the UGC 78 Act was highlighted to contend that non compliance with the so called guidelines formulated by DEC set up under the IGNOU Act was urged to be of no consequence; that the DEC guidelines having no statutory recognition cannot make any Degrees conferred by the Universities invalid assuming that such Universities had not followed guidelines. Considerable reliance was placed on the proceedings of the Meeting of the Board of Management of IGNOU held on 22.05.2007 regularizing the programmes being offered by the existing University Institutions under distance education system up to the point of time and it was also pointed out that if at all the recognition of the Council was necessary only in the academic session on and after July 2007; that the fact that Universities outside the State of Karnataka arrayed as respondents and who had conferred M.Phil Degrees are all set up under the State law or deemed university by UGC under section 3 of the UGC Act was highlighted to submit that Degree conferred by these Universities even under the distance education mode 79 were valid Degrees. The DEC regulations in any event can become operational only from 22.05.2007 when the Board of Management of IGNOU met and approved the DEC guidelines only on this day.
23. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private Universities and private respondents in these applications have also strongly contended before the Tribunal on similar lines and had urged for dismissal of the applications.
24. On the basis of such pleadings and submissions made at the Bar, the Tribunal had formulated as many as 'nine' points for its determination reading as under:
(1) Whether the Applications are maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?
(2) Whether the Applicants are estopped from challenging the select lists having participated in the selection process?
(3) Whether this Tribunal can go into the validity of the Degrees awarded by Alagappa and other Universities?80
(4) Whether the provisions of the UGC Act prevail over those of IGNOU and Guidelines of the DEC?
(5) Whether the approval from DEC by the Universities is mandatory and the absence of such approval from the DEC renders the Degrees in M.Phil acquired by the private Respondents invalid?
(6) Whether the UGC Guidelines are required to be followed irrespective of the provisions of the Cadre & Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government relating to the post of Lecturer and whether the Government Order dated 23.11.2006 and the Notification dated 24.12.2007 issued by the KPSC supplant the Cadre & Recruitment Rules?
(7) Whether the Guidelines issued by the DEC are mandatory?
(8) Whether the action of the Government in granting exemption to candidates who have acquired Degrees in M.Phil., from appearing for NET/SLET is valid?
(9) Whether the individual grievances made out by some of the Applicants can be gone into in this bunch of Applications? What order or direction?
25. The Tribunal held that having regard to the prayer sought for, point No.1 is answered in favour of the 81 applicants as applications were maintainable within the scope of section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicants were not estopped from raising the contentions urged therein as challenge was only to the faulty procedure followed by the KPSC in not applying the special rules in its true letter and spirit. On second point, the Tribunal answered it in favour of the applicants and held that they are not estopped from challenging the same.
26. On the third point, placing strong reliance on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of 'UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE v. GOVINDA RAO' reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of 'RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR v. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER' reported in 1986 [SUPP.] SCC 740 and other decisions of the Supreme Court following these decisions, it was held that the Tribunal had no power to sit in Judgment over the validity of M.Phil Degree awarded by Alagappa University or other Universities and this point was answered against the applicants.
82
27. The point No.4 was answered against the applicants, in the sense that, the provisions of the UGC Act prevailed over IGNOU Act and guidelines of DEC. The fifth point as to whether approval from DEC by the Universities is mandatory and in the absence of such approval from the DEC, Degree in M.Phil acquired by the candidates is invalid, was answered against the applicants by holding that such absence of permission from DEC to Alagappa University and other Universities who impart education through distance mode does not render the Degree of M.Phil conferred by them and acquired by the private respondents invalid after elaborately discussing the provisions of IGNOU Act and UGC Act and the proceedings taken by the DEC and Board of Management of IGNOU.
28. On point No.6, the Tribunal held that the Government Order dated 23.11.2006 and the Notification dated 24.12.2007 issued by the KPSC only supplements the cadre and recruitment rules and therefore being not at 83 variance with the cadre and recruitment rules nor the special rules, interference by the Tribunal was not warranted.
29. On point No.7, it was held that the guidelines issued by the DEC are not mandatory as DEC itself had no legal authority nor was a statutory authority and it was held to be only directory. Point No.8 was answered by the Tribunal in the affirmative by holding that the weightage given to candidates with M.Phil Degree and exemption given are all legal as the recruitment rules have been brought in conformity with the communication issued by the UGC about granting exemption from any of those candidates having M.Phil Degree.
30. On point No.9, the Tribunal held that while the Tribunal cannot examine the individual grievances of various applicants, the applicants were given liberty and KPSC was directed to consider the representations individually, but the Tribunal on noticing that the KPSC in 84 fact had given weightage to Guest Lecturers, concluded that the same being not in conformity with Rule 6B[1][a] of the 1993 Special Rules and weightage to be given to experience of teaching being only in favour of the applicants who had experience as full time lecturers in private institutions and as part time lecturers in Government First Grade Colleges at the Department of Collegiate Education and Guest Lecturers not fitting into either of these two descriptions, giving weightage on the basis of experience and awarding marks is not in consonance with Rule 6B[1][a] of the 1993 Special Rules and so also the notification issued by the KPSC by inviting applications not mentioning about any weightage to Guest Lecturers, it was held that the KPSC assuming that it has based on certain clarifications issued by the State Government had granted weightage to Guest Lecturers, it is illegal as no relaxation in qualification can be made not only contrary to the rules and regulations, but also contrary to the very notification inviting the applications 85 indicating the qualifications required and the benefits to be given in certain situations. Ultimately, in its conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the validity of the Degrees so obtained by the private respondents through distance education mode and so also the challenge to the Notification dated 23.11.2006. With regard to individual grievances, it was permitted for the applicants to point out their grievances within timeframe to the KPSC and the State Government and within the period of further one week of receipt of the same, the State Government as well as the KPSC to take decision on the same and all contentions in this regard were left open.
31. It is aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the present writ petitions by some of the applicants as noticed earlier.
32. Writ petition by KPSC is being aggrieved by that part of the order where the Tribunal has held that the KPSC had 86 committed illegality awarding weightage marks to Guest Lecturers.
33. We have heard Sri. Shivaraj N Arali, learned counsel for petitioners in writ petition Nos.26902-26914/2009 and being led by learned senior counsel Sri. Rajagopal, M/s. Shyam Prasad and Ajit, Advocates appearing for the petitioners in Writ petition Nos.26535-26539/2009, 25733- 25739/2009 and 25740-25750/2009 and Sri. T Narayanaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - KPSC in writ petition No.28567/2009 and Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - KPSC in all these petitions, Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State Government, Sri. Kantharaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - caveator in writ petition No.28567/2009, Sri. K Subbarao, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the selected candidates arrayed as respondents in the writ petitions, Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for deemed Universities 87 under section 3 of the UGC Act, Madurai Kamaraj University and University set up under the legislation of Tamil Nadu Government, Sri. J Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for some of the selected candidates arrayed as respondents in writ petition Nos.25740-25750/2009 so also some of the respondents in writ petition Nos.26902- 26914/2009.
34. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have not only made elaborate submissions but also have placed reliance on a good number of Judgments of the Supreme Court to support their propositions. Submissions and arguments are vast, contentions raised are many fold, authorities relied upon are innumerable, but ultimately, submission of learned counsel for petitioners is to allow the writ petitions whereas learned counsel for respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
35. KPSC also produced some of the original applications and marks awarded to candidates during interview and 88 weightage in respect of some of the candidates arrayed as respondents in these writ petitions.
36. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in WP Nos.26902-26914/2009, Sri. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. Shivaraj N Arali, Advocate, have strongly urged that M. Phil Degree qualification conferred by the Universities located outside the State of Karnataka and located in Tamil Nadu, namely, Vinayaka Missions University, Madurai Kamaraj University, Periyar Institute of Distance Education, Annamalai University, Bharathidasan University - respondents 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83 respectively in writ petition Nos.26902-26914/2009, are all invalid for the reason that duration of the course of study was only one year whereas DEC norms stipulated that it should be for a minimum of two years for M.Phil Degree when studying through distance education mode.
37. It is also urged that the Study Centres of these Universities wherein respondents had underwent course of 89 study and attended, being located in the State of Karnataka and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State in which these Universities had been established by an Act of that State or being a deemed university under section 3 of the UGC Act, having not obtained approval from the State Government in respect of Study Centres, is illegal, in the sense, DEC norms and guidelines specifically stipulated for opening of Study Centres, permission from the State in which such Centres are to be set up.
38. It is also strongly urged that the Tamil Nadu State Government taking note of the haphazard manner in which these Universities were conducting distance education programmes in M.Phil courses, had directed the Universities not to offer these courses through distance education from the academic year 2007-08 and such courses should be offered only in regular stream and when this is the state of affairs and order of the State Government in which these Universities have been set up, no M.Phil Degree can be obtained after this period and even 90 Degrees obtained purporting to be on the basis of the study for earlier years being suspect, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in upholding the Degree for recognition as valid qualification, particularly, for relieving such respondents from the requirement of passing NET and also in awarding weightage marks to them.
39. Mr. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel has contended that the Study Centres should be located within the territorial jurisdiction of the University and within the State insofar as deemed Universities are concerned and therefore location of Study Centres of Universities which are within the State of Tamil Nadu outside the State, namely, in different places in Karnataka and more so without permission and approval of the State Government are all not valid and therefore the students who have under went any study or course in such Study Centers cannot be said to have acquired a valid Degree by having a proper course of study.
91
40. In support of this submission, Mr. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'KURMANCHAL INSTITUTE OF DEGREE & DIPLOMA AND OTHERS v. CHANCELLOR, MJP ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS' reported in [2007] 6 SCC 35. In this case, the Supreme Court held that cancellation or closing of study centres operating outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University was upheld and the challenge by the Institution against the order challenging closure of the study centres because it was located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University which had been given permission for opening the study centre was not permitted.
41. Mr. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel would also submit that so called retrospective recognition or post facto recognition or approval to the course conducted through distance education mode imparted by the respondents - Universities is not a valid order as even if DEC had done so, it had no such power and places reliance for this 92 proposition on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v.
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS' reported in
[2009] 4 SCC 590 and it is therefore submitted that assuming that the Universities claim that they had obtained post facto approval or recognition, it is of no consequence in law and the approval can only operate prospectively. It is submitted that if a student has undergone a course of study prior to this period, it cannot be said that such student has held a valid degree.
42. Mr. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel also submits that the Tribunal has committed error in not making a distinction between M.Phil Degree obtained through regular course of study and M.Phil Degree obtained through distance education mode; that the guidelines and regulations made by DEC being a Body meant to regulate and maintain standards in imparting education by distance education mode for achieving such purpose, that should be 93 followed by the Universities and Institutions and it cannot be diluted on the premise that the University regulations did not provide for such standards. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'BHARATI VIDYAPEETH [DEEMED UNIVERSITY] AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER' reported in [2004] 11 SCC 755, to hold that concept of territorial jurisdiction of the University has been done away and scope of operation of University is now expanded throughout the territory of India as a ratio emerging from the aforesaid Judgment is totally erroneous inference drawn by the Tribunal by rejecting the contentions of the applicants - petitioners that the study centers cannot be located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University and the State in the case of deemed university; that this Judgment of the Supreme Court has not laid down any such proposition or law and on the other hand, the ratio in this case is only to hold that UGC Act is not only for the purpose of making grants to various institutions governed 94 by it, but also has the competence to grant deemed status for a University under section 3 of the UGC Act. It was only held in this case that State Laws and Orders etc., can only operate in respect of deemed Universities if not relating to maintaining of standards of higher education, but not in respect of maintaining standards of education which are within the domain of Medical Council, Dental Council etc.
43. It is also contended by Sri Rajagopal that the commission has committed an illegality in awarding weightage marks to applicants who had claimed teaching experience as guest lecturers, inasmuch as, neither the special Rules nor the notification issued by the commission inviting applications had provided for the same. It is also submitted that even in respect of others, the commission has awarded weightage marks based on the certificates issued by incompetent persons/authorities to issue such certificates, particularly in the case of persons claiming part-time lecturer experience, as the certificate should have been issued for such experience by the directorate of 95 collegiate education, government of Karnataka and not by any private persons. Sri Rajgopal submits that part-time lecturer in private educational institutions are also given such certificates, that is also bad in law. Sri Rajagopal has urged that the tribunal, though noticed these irregularities and infirmities, has, nevertheless, has not invalidated the same, but relegated the same to the commission to redo, without commensurate directions, is virtually denying relief to the applicants, though they succeeded in their contentions and accepted by the tribunal.
44. It is also submitted by Sri Rajagopal, learned senior counsel, that accepting incomplete applications, applications without necessary certificates, though, is noticed by the tribunal on a perusal of some of the applications produced by the KPSC before the tribunal, not invalidating the selections is another error committed by the tribunal.
96
45. Sri Rajagopal and Sri Shivaraj N Arali, have strongly contended that out of the selected candidates in the subject of sociology, petitioners-applicants had arrayed 74 of them as respondents to the applications before the tribunal and in the writ petitions before this court, on the premise that their selection is bad for one reason or the other such as not possessing valid MPhil degree, not having experience in teaching entitling them award of weightage of marks, not submitting their applications duly filled in before the last date prescribed for receipt of applications by the commission, not producing relevant certificates along with the applications and the tribunal though found many of these allegations were true even from out of the record of only 43 of such selected candidates as against 83 arrayed as respondents, has neither invalidated the selection of candidates with such defects and deficiencies, nor has cared to scrutinize the record in respect of other 30 candidates, which had been withheld by the commission 97 from production before the tribunal, and therefore an adverse inference should have been drawn.
46. Sri Rajagopal also submitted that KPSC while had published a provisional select list on 26-11-2008 and had invited objections and though the petitioners-applicants filed their objections on 1-12-2008, they have all been mechanically rejected on 1-1-2009 without due consideration and KPSC has proceeded to announce the final list, which is the same as provisional list, without effecting any changes. In this regard, it is submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by the tribunal, which, in fact, had found many glaring irregularities and illegalities committed by KPSC in the process of the applications and in the selection of candidates, those objections were filed subsequently, yet again KPSC has mechanically rejected all such representations given on 25-8-2009, which yet again shows the mechanical manner in which KPSC is functioning and disregarding the directions issued by the tribunal. Submission is that the selection process is 98 vitiated and the selection of respondents 3 to 76 should be set aside and the select list redone on merit basis, after eliminating persons who are bereft of qualifications and eligibility.
47. Sri Rajagopal, by drawing our attention to a chart and tabulated statement prepared by the counsel in respect of private respondents showing the kind of lacuna in their applications as to why such applications could not have been entertained, has submitted that KPSC should be directed to address these issues and give specific finding and to invalidate the applications of the candidates which are not in conformity with the instructions contained in the employment notification issued by the commission.
48. Sri B M Shyam Prasad and Sri Ajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other petitions, apart from adopting all the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the other batch of writ petitions as urged by Sri P S Rajagopal, learned senior counsel, have submitted 99 that the tribunal has committed an error in concluding that distance education imparting universities in Tamilnadu having obtained UGC permission, DEC permission is not necessary. In this regard, learned counsel pointed to the very UGC Rules, particularly Rule 4, which stipulates that a deemed university should obtain the approval of DEC before starting distance education course. Submission is that DEC guidelines have been approved by the DEC at its meeting of the board of management and with effect from 19-1-2006 as per the proceedings in the 26th meeting of the board of management and the DEC being a statutory authority, in the sense that it is also an authority created under Section 23 of the IGNOU Act read with statute 28 of the statutes of the IGNOU - a statutory authority, and therefore even as per Regulation 4 of the UGC Regulations, these guidelines are binding on all institutions imparting education by distance mode and offering degrees and even in respect of the duration of the course for MPhil is a minimum of two years and if they have set up their study 100 centres outside the territorial jurisdiction of the universities and outside the state in the case of deemed university located in a particular state, then permission of the other state is a must.
49. M/s. B M Shyam Prasad & Ajit, Advocates, have also submitted that finding of the Tribunal is that DEC has no authority in the eye of law; that it has no backing of the statute; that the guidelines which are framed by it regarding standards to be maintained for imparting M.Phil course in Degree through distance education mode is not binding is clearly erroneous and unsustainable finding; that the UGC regulations itself has recognized the status and position of DEC; that it is as noticed earlier a statutory authority; that the DEC is a regulatory Body meant to prescribe and maintain standards in institutions which offer courses and Degrees through distance education mode and therefore the regulations and guidelines prescribed by it is on par with that prescribed by any professional Body like Medical Council of India or AICTE 101 and has in support of the submission placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS' reported in 1997 [7] SCC 120 and in particular has placed strong reliance on the Judgment as contained in paragraph-55 of this Judgment wherein the Supreme Court has held that the guidelines prescribed by Medical Council of India regarding maintenance of standards in Medical Education and Higher Medical Education binds all Universities and Universities should necessarily follow the same and if otherwise the Medical Council can derecognize the Degrees offered by such Universities and holding so by overruling its earlier Judgment in the case of 'AJAY KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR' reported in 1994 [4] SCC 401 wherein it had been held that Medical Council guidelines was only directory but overruling the said view, the Supreme Court has taken the view in the case of 'DR. PREETHI SRIVATSAVA [supra] that Medical Council guidelines and 102 regulations are statutory and binding and mandatory on the Universities and on the strength of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, submits that the DEC should be taken to be a professional Body on par with Medical Council of India [for short 'MCI'] and All India Council for Technical Education [for short 'AICTE'] and therefore it is urged that the guidelines prescribed by DEC binds the Universities imparting education by distance education mode.
50. It is also submitted that time schedule and other stipulations as per the DEC guidelines and regulations also equally bind the Universities who are running courses through distance education mode and in support of this submission, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'PARSHVANATH CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS v. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS' reported in 2013 [3] SCC 385. Strong reliance is placed on the observations and findings given at paragraphs 34 and 103 35 of this Judgment to submit that it had been held in that case that the time schedule calendar as prescribed by AICTE binds all Institutions of Education and so also is the situation where the DEC vis-à-vis Universities offering courses through distance education mode.
51. Mr. Shyam Prasad has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of 'N. GANESAN v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN' decided on 23.02.2012 in writ appeal Nos.1327 to 1342 of 2011 wherein the students who had been admitted in Universities imparting courses through distance education mode and which courses were not approved or permitted by the DEC or UGC, such admissions were not valid and awarding of Diplomas by them was also illegal being contrary to the guidelines, rules and regulations framed by AICTE and UGC also based on the affidavit placed before the court to this effect, directions had been issued to the Director of Technical Education to take appropriate action against the erring University and 104 Institutions. The appellants' case was dismissed who had sought for appointment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on the strength of the Diploma conferred by such University and by distance education mode.
52. Likewise, reliance is also placed on another Judgment of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of 'TAMIL NADU GRADUATE FOOD INSPECTOR'S ASSOCIATION BY ITS ORGANISING SECRETARY v. THE DIRECTOR-CUM-
STATE FOOD HEALTH AUTHORITY AND OTHERS' rendered on 11.10.2007 in writ appeal [MD] Nos.236 and 237 of 2007 and MP [MD] Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 wherein it was held that the Diploma offered by Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation cannot be said to be a valid Diploma for the reason that it had not been approved by DEC or UGC, but the course offered by distance education programmes and unless it is disapproved by UGC is a valid contention, which came to be rejected by the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court held that such view requires reconsideration, particularly, when it has not been 105 expressly approved by UGC or DEC. It was also held that Diploma courses offered by deemed university does not come within the purview of Directorate of Technical Education.
53. On the strength of the ratio of these decisions, what is urged by Sri. Shyam Prasad is that approval by professional Body like DEC is a must and if not degree conferred by University offering distance education in M.Phil course and the concurrent Degree is not valid.
54. Mr. Shyam Prasad has with reference to Regulation 3.4 of UGC [Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities] Regulations, 2003, has mandated that private institution should fulfill the minimum criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability etc., as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies such as the All India Council for Technical Education [AICTE], the Bar Council of India [BCI], the 106 Distance Education Council [DEC], the Dental Council of India [DCI], the Indian Nursing Council [INC], the Medical Council of India [MCI], the National Council for Teacher Education [NCTE], the Pharmacy Council of India [PCI] etc., and as per this regulation also, it is indicated that DEC is not only a statutory Body, but also its norms prescribed in minimum criteria for running a programme and faculty requirement for the same etc., are all to be complied strictly; that violation by any institution or university necessarily leads to invalidation of the Degree conferred by such errant universities or institutions.
55. Mr. Shyam Prasad has submitted that the guidelines issued by the UGC for establishing new Departments in the campus or setting up of Off-Campus Centres and starting distance education programmes by deemed universities and particularly for reopening the study centre, points out that the deemed universities are normally permitted to operate within their own campus and within the area of their specialization and so far as setting up of new off- 107 campus centres are concerned, procedure as per guidelines 2.2 stipulates that it can be set up only after due permission from the UGC and the concerned State Government where such centres are proposed to be established; that in the absence, it is submitted that the Degree will not be valid and such is the case in respect of M.Phil Degrees conferred by Vinayaka Mission University.
56. Mr. Shyam Prasad has pointed out that even as per letter addressed by the UGC during October 2007 and sent to all Vice Chancellors of all Deemed Universities, it has been emphasized that before starting the courses under distance education mode, they should have obtained prior approval of both DEC and UGCV and any course started in violation, even if had been started, should be stopped immediately and unauthorized study centres in existence should also be closed down immediately and on failure to comply with such directions, the Universities run the risk of withdrawal of deemed university status conferred on them. All these materials are relied upon to submit that 108 the DEC is a recognized professional Body whose guidelines and regulations are binding on all institutions imparting distance education and offering courses through distance education mode.
57. Learned counsel submits that writ petitioners are questioning the selection of 39 candidates selected for being appointed as Lecturers in Political Science from out of 179 in writ petition Nos.26535-26539/2009, selection of 23 candidates in History subject from out of 180 candidates in writ petition Nos.25733-25739/2009 and selection of 55 candidates in Economics subject from out of 205 candidates selected in writ petition Nos.25740- 25750/2009 and submits that these respondents having obtained M. Phil by undergoing study in distance education mode and from Universities located in Tamilnadu, the Degrees should be considered invalid and therefore urges for redoing the list of selected candidates by removing the names of these respondents as in the absence of a valid M. Phil Degree, such selected candidates will not even fulfill 109 the requisite minimum qualification such as passing NET with 50% marks and submits that the case of writ petitioners should be considered.
58. In the writ petition filed by KPSC i.e., writ petition No.28567/2009, questioning the common order of the Tribunal, insofar as it related to finding that giving of teaching experience weightage to candidates who are having guest lecture experience is illegal, Sri. T. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel has appeared and has strongly urged that the Tribunal committed a grave error in concluding that the guest lecturers are not eligible for service weightage; that it is only change in the nomenclature; that guest lecturers and part time lecturers perform same kind of duties and same nature of job and the State Government for certain reasons had redesignated the post of part time lecturers in the Government First Grade Colleges as guest lecturers, but in all other respects, nature of duty and appointment remained the same; that in view of the Government Notification clarifying its earlier 110 notification that persons who can be engaged as guest lecturers can only be amongst the retired lecturers, but later relaxing the same as per Government Notification of the year 2005 saying that situations when retired lecturers are not available to be appointed as guest lecturers, even others can be appointed, submits that KPSC based on this had treated guest lecturers on par with part time lecturers; that in substance, there was no difference between the two and as such submits that the Tribunal while disposing of Application No.861/2009 before it should have taken note of this point, should not have interfered with awarding of weightage marks to guest lecturers holding it as illegal is not sustainable.
59. Sri. Kantharaj, learned counsel for respondent in writ petition No.28567/2009 and applicants in Application No.861/2009 strongly contended that the Tribunal has very correctly characterized awarding of weightage marks to guest lecturers; that it is clearly in contravention of rule - 6B of the 1993 Special Rules; that it is not within the 111 domain of KPSC to deviate from the rule imposing its own norms and standards and defend its action by saying that the State Government though was aware of the appointment of guest lecturers having not provided for or giving weightage to them nor having amended, no exception can be taken to the validity of the rules or binding nature of it; that the Tribunal is clearly in error in showing favour to guest lecturers which is not contemplated under the rules and even as per the notification issued by the UGC itself.
60. It is significant to note in this regard that the State Government which has filed statement of objections exclusively to this writ petition, has taken a specific stand that as indicated in paragraph-4 of its statement and has strongly supported the view taken by the Tribunal to urge that the Tribunal was right in noticing that Rule 6B[1][a] of the 1993 Special Rules did not provide for grant of service weightage in favour of guest lecturers and has therefore rightly held that such action on the part of the KPSC in granting weightage marks to guest lecturers is illegal and 112 consequential declaration such weightage to guest lecturers is illegal is only to be upheld.
61. It is also reiterated in the statement filed on behalf of the State Government that weightage of 'five' marks for service will be justified only if candidates had served as full time lecturers affiliated to any University in India or as part time lecturers in Government First Grade College as per Rule 6B[1][a] of the 1993 Special Rules and any other type of experience is not one qualifying for award of weightage marks for past experience.
62. In paragraphs 5 & 6, the same aspect is emphasized that no service weightage can be given to guest lecturers on par with part time lecturers, particularly, as guest lecturers had been given ample opportunities to apply for the post of lecturers and therefore no provision had been made to give them service weightage and KPSC not acting as per the rules, but acting to the contrary is definitely not sustainable.
113
63. Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate with reference to such statement, has defended the view of the Tribunal and submitted that the writ petitioners' contention in the writ petitions to the effect that guest lecturers are not entitled for service weightage marks to this extent and on such premise is justified.
64. Appearing on behalf of the KPSC, Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel has strongly urged that the KPSC has gone about the selection procedure as per the notification and has strictly adhered to the scheme of selection process; that instructions as contained in the Notification dated 24.12.2007 and the calendar for receiving the applications have all been strictly adhered to; that the academic qualifications have also been strictly enforced; that the KPSC had followed the method of what is known as 'check list' to be filled up by each of the candidate in his own handwriting in two sets indicating as to what all documents have been submitted along with the application; that it has adopted a transparent policy in this regard; that the 114 applications were scrutinized, a list of applications which were rejected was also notified based on not having cut off marks for eligibility or their applications being not proper and based on the merit list of candidates, notices were issued to them, interviews were conducted and marks were given at the time of interview and addition of weightage marks i.e., for possessing M.Phil Degree one mark, candidates having obtained ranks proportionate to their qualification and the candidates with past experience proportionate to the number of years of experience, but the KPSC has limited the total marks given under the weightage scheme to a maximum of 'five' and in no case it has been exceeded; that the KPSC has also not received any application or documents after last date prescribed for receiving the applications, but is only such of those documents such as originals and for replacing provisional Degree certificates etc., further documents, originals were received at the time of interview of the candidate for which the candidate had already filed copies/provisional Degree 115 certificate along with the application; that the KPSC had made available the records of other respondents insofar as candidates who had been selected in Sociology subject which was under challenge in writ petition Nos.26902- 26914/2009.
65. Mr Reuben Jacob submits that the learned counsel for petitioners have also been enabled to go through the same; that the discrepancies pointed out have all been explained; that none of them is in the nature of violation of the conditions of the Notification; that even violation pointed out by Sri. P S Rajagopal, learned senior counsel with reference to candidature of Ms. Poornima is only in the nature of technical violation, but not really violation of any of the stipulations regarding last date and such aspects; that the KPSC had published provisional list of candidates based on their total marks merit wise, objections had been invited, considered, final selection list was published thereafter and forwarded to the State Government for action of the same and therefore submits that the writ 116 petitions have no merit on the aspect of violation by KPSC on the basis of the conditions for submitting applications as indicated in the notification.
66. With regard to the validity or otherwise of M.Phil Degree certificate issued by the Universities in Tamilnadu which are Universities under the State enactments or deemed universities under the UGC Act are concerned, submission is that the KPSC and the State Government had also sought for clarification from the UGC who has not expressed that Degrees are invalid; that in the wake of such clarification issued by the UGC itself, it was not for the KPSC to sit in appeal over the validity of the Degree; that even otherwise, the KPSC cannot determine this question as the KPSC cannot invalidate the Degrees conferred by the University established in law and recognized by the UGC; that the UGC's letter dated 29.05.2009 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Education Department, had specifically indicated that even the candidates with M.Phil Degree from distance mode can be 117 considered for recruitment for the post of lecturer with a concomitant relaxation in their favour from the requirement of passing NET and therefore submits that the challenge to M.Phil degree conferred by such University does not stand.
67. It is also submitted that the Tribunal cannot go into the validity of such Degrees and therefore the Tribunal has rightly refrained from embarking on such a venture.
68. Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel has referred to extensively from the order of the Tribunal where under it is held that the Tribunal noticed the Universities had all the approval of the UGC and in this regard, has also with reference to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY [supra] and distinguishes this case, as one of a person without a basic Degree being conferred with post graduate Degree which was not in conformity with the UGC norms or DEC guidelines and therefore such a Degree was held to be 118 invalid by the Supreme Court but the case on hand is not one such.
69. It is submitted that at the best, violation can be termed as procedural irregularity committed by the University and at any rate, it is not for the KPSC to sit in Judgment over these actions. What is very strongly urged is that while the UGC itself has not taken any action for invalidating the Degree conferred by these Universities for M. Phil course through distance education, it is not for the KPSC to take a different view going into great details of manner of functioning of these Universities etc.
70. It is essentially urged that the KPSC is not the monitoring authority on the functioning of such Universities and has to accept the Degree at its face value so long as it is not invalidated by the competent authority.
71. Mr. Reuben Jacob, learned counsel has also sought to defend action of the KPSC in awarding marks to guest lecturers on the premise that guest lecturers who are in 119 substitution of part time lecturers, but continued to discharge the same nature of functions and therefore if the KPSC had treated them on par with part time lecturers, no exception can be taken and to this extent, the Tribunal is in error in characterizing and awarding of weightage marks to guest lecturers as illegal.
72. Appearing on behalf of private respondents, M/s. K. Subbarao and Sri. Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel have submitted in tandem that in the first instance, writ petitions as well as applications before the Tribunal are not tenable in as much as petitioners were persons who had applied for the post under the very notification issued by the KPSC, participated in the selection process and only after finding that they have not been selected and therefore are aggrieved have now turned around to question the validity of the very selection which is not permitted in law; that they having participated in the selection process are estopped from questioning the very validity of selection process and in support of the same, 120 have placed strong reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'MADAN LAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF J & K AND OTHERS' reported in [1995] 3 SCC 486 and in the case of ' DHANANJAYMALIK v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL' reported in 2008 SCC [L&S] 1005.
73. Learned senior counsel have also submitted that the question of equivalence of a Degree or as to whether M.Phil Degree conferred by the Universities in Tamilnadu by distance education mode is on par with M.Phil Degree obtained by students who have undergone regular course of study is not a question that can be examined by courts and Tribunals, but it is only academic Bodies which can examine the same and the Tribunal which has limited jurisdiction cannot also go into the validity of the Degrees conferred by Universities and therefore the Tribunal is very right in accepting the Degree conferred by the University whether under the distance education mode or otherwise and whether located inside the State or outside the State as 121 a valid Degree and in this regard have drawn our attention to section 22 of the UGC Act to submit that the right of conferring or granting a Degree is only that of University established by the State or Central Legislation and it is not for the Tribunal to annul such a Degree nor for this court, though powers of this court are much wider than the power of the Tribunal, this court being a Constitutional Court, but the question is whether it should be done or not and submits that in the circumstances, there is no occasion to embark on this venture.
74. Mr. Subba Rao has also submitted that when once the Degree is granted and conferred by the University, it cannot be invalidated by a court or by other Universities and has in this regard placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GOVINDA RAO [supra] to which extensive reference has been made by the Tribunal and which has been followed consistently by the Supreme Court in its later Judgments.
122
75. Sri K Subbarao, learned senior counsel, has also sought to justify the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY [supra], pointing out that the Supreme Court had held that post facto approval of post-graduate degree by state education board in that case is not valid for the reason that a candidate did not have a basic degree at all which is a prerequisite for undergoing a course in post-graduation even under distance education mode, but such was not the situation in the present batch of cases; that post facto approval of starting of a course and continuing of a course by distance education mode by universities or by professional bodies like DEC cannot be sought to be invalidated on the ratio of the judgment in the above judgment of the Supreme Court.
76. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B L ASAWA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(1982) 2 SCC 55], it is submitted that a degree conferred by one university cannot be either invalidated or annulled by another university and support 123 is drawn from this judgment and submission is that a degree conferred by a university even assuming it is located in Tamilnadu, cannot be invalidated by another university or institution and therefore the tribunal also could not have gone into the validity of this aspect of the matter.
77. It is also submitted by Sri Subbarao that a degree conferred by a university, recognized and set up by an Act of Parliament or an Act of state legislature or as a deemed university under Sections 3 and 22 of the UGC Act is valid, not merely within the territorial jurisdiction of the university but throughout the country and therefore even degrees conferred by universities located in Tamilnadu are, nevertheless, valid even for the purpose of selection to the post of lecturer in the state of Karnataka. Therefore, Sri Subbarao has urged for dismissal of the writ petitions.
78. Sri H Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent-universities - Vinayaka mission university as well as Madurai Kamaraj university - and 124 private respondents in WP No 26902-14 of 2009 and other batch of writ petitions, has firstly urged that the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is considerably less, in the sense that court cannot act as a court of appeal. It is submitted that it is well established constitutional principle that while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, High Court and Supreme Court interfere only when there is an illegality or material irregularity in the decision making process affecting the decision or when the decision is so irrational and that cannot be accepted, as recognized in Wednesbury principle. In this regard, strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of TATA CELLULAR vs UNION OF INDIA [(1994) 6 SCC 651] and also in the case of SURYA DEV RAI vs RAM CHANDER RAI [(2003) 6 SCC 675] and in the case of KALINGA MINING CORPORATION vs UNION OF INDIA [(2013) 5 SCC 252].
79. It is secondly contended by Sri Jois that DEC being a creature under a statute of IGNOU Act, it has no statutory 125 recognition as in the case of UGC, established by an Act of Parliament or State legislation and at any rate the provisions of UGC Act prevail over IGNOU Act, which is sub-serving the UGC Act in the matter of laying down norms and standards in education, in particular higher education and therefore submits that the approval or non- approval in implementing the guidelines issued by DEC in their letter and spirit will not make any difference to the degree conferred by the universities recognized under law and for such purpose has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY [supra], particularly paragraphs 40, 51 and 59, and also in the case of BHARATHI VIDFYAPEETH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2004) 11 SCC 755].
Though Sri Jois has submitted that judicial in matters of selection and appointment made by experts in the absence of plea and proof of mala fides is a hindering factor for the court to examine the validity or otherwise of the selection and has also placed reliance for such purpose on the 126 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BASAVAIAH (DR) vs DR H L RAMESH [(2010) 8 SCC 372], following the dictum at the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of SAJEESH BABU vs N K SANTOSH [(2012) 12 SCC 106], we are afraid, for this proposition, these authorities may not help much, as, at the very best, case of the writ petitioners and the applicants before the tribunal is that KPSC has acted in violation of the Rules and its own terms in the notification and has also acted to favour many candidates even by receiving their applications and documents beyond the last date prescribed and at any rate has shown uncalled for favour in the case of candidates who claimed service weightage marks on the basis of guest lecturer experience by awarding marks to such persons when even Rule did not permit or enable the same.
80. Sri Jois has taken us elaborately through the order of the tribunal and made submissions that these respondents though had not questioned the findings of the tribunal on points 1 and 2, which went in favour of the applicants, the 127 respondents can nevertheless support the order of the tribunal on the same lines as the position of a respondent in an appeal to support a decree even while not appealing against the findings of the trial court by calling in aid the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC. Submission is that the findings on points 1 and 2 rendered by the tribunal are suspect and on point 2, it is submitted that the applicants- writ petitioners are estopped from contending so before the tribunal having participated in the selection process. In support of this submission, a celebrated case of the Supreme Court in the case of M P SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS [AIR 1979 SC 621].
81. Sri Subramanya Jois has also submitted that the answer given by the tribunal on point No 3 alone is sufficient to dismiss these writ petitions, as these findings do not suffer from any of the three requisites for inviting interference in judicial review; that the findings of the tribunal does indicate there is no drawback in it; that it did 128 not suffer from any procedural irregularities nor suffer from any irrationality and not an illegality and therefore the findings cannot be examined within the scope of judicial review under Article 227. Sri Jois submitted that once the findings of the tribunal on point No 3 are accepted, no other findings survive for examination and therefore no scope for interference in writ jurisdiction.
82. Sri Jois has also placed strong reliance on the findings recorded by the tribunal to hold that DEC has no statutory recognition nor its guidelines and regulations are statutory provisions; that they are all mere guidelines with no force of law and therefore cannot in any manner pave way for either de-recognizing or invalidating a degree conferred by a university even assuming that the university has not scrupulously followed the guidelines.
83. Sri Jois has also called in aid the principle of equity to submit that the respondents having already been appointed should not be disturbed at this point of time from their jobs 129 on humanitarian grounds. It is also submitted that the writ petitioners have sought to raise certain points before this court when such points were not even raised before the tribunal and this is also not permissible.
84. Sri J Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for respondents 8, 10, 11, 42, 61 & 62 in WP No 26902-14 of 2009, submitted that in the applications filled up and submitted by these respondents, there is no illegality or non-fulfillment of any of the guidelines; that Kuvempu university, from which they had obtained MPhil degree in sociology subject, had issued a notification dated 30-1- 2008, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-R88 to the objections filed by these respondents on 25-6-2013, and they have produced their MPhil degree certificates at the time of interview and therefore it is not as though they did not possess MPhil degree.
85. Sri Prashant, also appearing for the respondents 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 26, 29 and 37 in WP No 28567 of 130 2009, submitted that these respondents working either as part-time lecturers in government colleges or full time lecturers in private colleges and even as guest lecturers are also working as part time lecturers in government colleges and therefore justified the award of service weightage marks to them and therefore submitted that they having also worked as part time lecturers, their service as guest lecturer can also be counted for awarding marks, but for different purpose.
86. It is in this background of such pleadings, contentions and authorities relied upon and the statutory provisions in supplementing the guidelines, communications, clarifications issued by the state government, central government and the UGC, these writ petitions are required to be examined to decide the extent of interference possible in writ jurisdiction and as to what extent the findings of the tribunal are sustainable and the actions of the KPSC either can be sustained or can be invalidated?
131
87. We notice one common streak in the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in these petitions is that they have all asserted the supremacy of the UGC and the UGC Act, the Regulations and the guidelines and if either to defend the validity of the MPhil degree conferred by the universities in question located in Tamilnadu through distance education mode, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents or to attack the same as urged by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners.
88. In the wake of such submissions, the points that arise for our consideration are:
i) Whether the applications before the tribunal and the present writ petitions are tenable?
ii) Whether this court can declare on the validity of the MPhil degree conferred by six universities in question located in Tamilnadu and having their study centres in the state of Karnataka?
iii) Whether any further directions are required to be issued to KPSC in the wake of the finding of the tribunal that awarding of service weightage marks to 132 guest lecturers is illegal and also calls for interference?
iv) Whether any guidelines and directions are required to be issued to the KPSC in the wake of the developments as noticed and pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties in these writ petitions and as noticed from the records of the KPSC?
89. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, particularly, the private respondents is about the maintainability of the present writ petitions before this court and the applications as had been filed by the present writ petitioners before the Tribunal.
90. The objections raised are two fold. One is that the writ petitioners have asserted that M. Phil Degrees granted by the Universities located in Tamil Nadu through distance education mode is not a valid Degree and therefore on such premise, the Tribunal should invalidate the Degree which in effect is the prayer and the consequence being prayed, this being not within the scope of jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the 133 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applications should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. This objection is one relating to the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
91. The second part of the objections regarding maintainability before the Tribunal is on the premise that the applicants before the Tribunal who had undergone the very selection process cannot turn around and challenge the selection process just because they are not able to get themselves selected and therefore they are estopped from questioning the process of selection by the KPSC on the principle of promissory estoppel etc. This is very strongly urged by not only counsel appearing for the KPSC before this court but also by learned senior counsel appearing for private respondents - universities and students who had acquired M.Phil Degree from those universities. The Tribunal no doubt examined these two questions and had answered it in favour of the applicants.
134
92. We would prefer to give our own reasons. The applicants who were persons aspiring for the post of Lecturers in various disciplines in terms of the notification issued by the KPSC inviting applications are basically aggrieved by the KPSC not adhering to its own stipulations indicated in the notification under which the applications are invited and not adhering to the recruitment rules governing the adding of weightage marks and KPSC not following a uniform procedure/method in respect of all applications and processing them. The applicants though no doubt had contended that the Degrees awarded by Alagappa and other Universities located in the State of Tamil Nadu in M.Phil course from distance education mode are not valid Degrees, no relief had been sought for vis-à- vis validity of the Degree by the applicants. The applicants had only urged that the KPSC should not have acted on the basis of suspect Degrees obtained by private respondents in these petitions and applicants before the Tribunal. 135
93. An Administrative Tribunal is a creature under the Central Legislation - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, particularly, the State Tribunal is in respect of matters relating to employment in the State services and disputes arising in the course of employment under the State. The grievance of the applicants was in respect of selection made to the post of lecturer which is undisputedly employment under the State and that it is an illegal selection for deviating from the very conditions indicated in the notification and the rules and therefore is well within the scope of section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In fact, disputes relating to the cases of employment under the State, has to be necessarily brought before the Tribunals only, and not elsewhere. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to look into the applications involving such disputes. The applications before the Tribunal by the present writ petitioners undoubtedly involved disputes relating to employment of the respondents under the State and on the basis of select 136 list prepared and forwarded by the KPSC to the State Government. There is no dispute or doubt that preparation of select list is for appointment to the post by the State Government. The applicants had not sought for declaration of any of the Degrees as invalid. Whether granting such relief, the Tribunal has jurisdiction is a debatable point. When that had not been sought for and what had been sought for is only with regard to employment to be provided on the basis of M.Phil Degrees which according to the applicants was a suspect or invalid Degree. The applications were entertained as very much within the scope of jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Good number of authorities relied upon by learned counsel for respondents in this regard will not get attracted to the facts of the present case.
94. The second limb of the argument is that the applicants who had undergone the very selection process cannot turn around and question the selection of others; that they are estopped from challenging the select list 137 having participated in the selection process and on the authority of the decision relied upon by learned counsel for respondents and therefore the applications were not maintainable. We find that the contentions of the applicants was not that selection process in its entirety was bad or suspect, but the KPSC has deviated from the settled principles of fair play and uniform treatment, has acted in contravention of the very recruitment rules governing such appointments and in award of weightage marks in contravention of the rules. Such challenges are all on the premise that the KPSC has not adhered to the rules and terms of conditions in the notification published inviting the applications. The challenge is not to the selection process per se in general, but to the illegal act, manner of evaluating comparative merits of the applicants by the KPSC and also on the premise that the KPSC itself has given a go by from adhering to the special recruitment rules while awarding experience weightage marks. 138
95. Not according equal opportunities to all similarly situated persons in matters of public employment definitely violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it can definitely be brought before the Tribunal and also before this court. If the conduct of the KPSC while preparing the select list is hit by such discriminatory procedure or method followed by the KPSC and is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which is a constitutional violation and not merely statutory violation or irregularity in not adhering to a rule, but an infraction of the constitutional rights. Any matter of this nature can definitely be brought before the Tribunal and also this court for relief if it is the case of the applicants and the writ petitioners that there is violation of any constitutional provisions. In fact, an accepted principle of law on scope of fundamental rights, particularly, Articles 14, 16 etc is that no person can waive fundamental right nor can even plead estoppel against the person claiming a constitutional right. Challenge to the selection by the applicants before the 139 tribunal was principally on the premise that such action violates Articles 14 and 16 - fundamental right given to citizens under the Constitution of India. In such matters, the principle of promissory estoppel is definitely not attracted. Therefore, we have to necessarily hold that the applications were very much tenable before the Tribunal both on the grounds of disputes brought before the Tribunal by the applicants was well within the limits of jurisdiction conferred on service Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and also that any challenge to the selection process based on any violation of fundamental right, the question of estoppel does not operate nor on facts the applicants have questioned the selection process as has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in the case of MADAN LAL [supra] relied upon by learned counsel for respondents and the later cases following the same. The relief sought for in the applications was well within the scope of section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
140
96. Insofar as challenge to maintainability of the writ petitions before this court is concerned, it is not precisely the challenge on the basis of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present writ petitions, but as an argument that the relief sought for whether as against the findings and conclusion of the Tribunal in the applications or as sought for in the writ petitions, does not come within the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and on such premise, it is contended that the writ petitions cannot make any headway before this court for further relief and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents have called in aid the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of TATA CELLULAR, SURYA DEV RAI and KALINGA MINING CORPORATION [supras]. While it is true that the scope of judicial review as noticed in these Judgments of the Supreme Court is definitely not on par with the appellate jurisdiction and not for granting all types of reliefs, nevertheless, judicial review is available within the limits of 141 Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of administrative actions and more so when the impugned action is said to be in violation of constitutional provisions and fundamental rights. Judicial review of administrative action in fact is recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution and there is no question of saying that there cannot be judicial review in respect of administrative action of preparing a select list by the KPSC for appointment to the post of Lecturers under the State and if preparation is flawed due to violation of the relevant rules or not adhering to the published conditions, stipulations and such actions are definitely amenable within the scope of judicial review of administrative action in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this court. The reason given by us about as to how principle of promissory estoppel are not attracted in the context of maintainability of the applications before the Tribunal afortioari applies to the maintainability of the present writ petitions before this court and it is made clear that the jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative 142 action of this court is not dependent on the person bringing a cause in writ jurisdiction or to say in other words, conduct of a person, nor is it limited by interse actions amongst private persons. While exercising writ jurisdiction and for judicial review of executive/administrative action, the superior courts in this country are High Court and the Supreme Court do not examine the cause as in the case of adversary litigation between two parties, but examination is only of the conduct and functioning of the State and as to whether it is within the limits of statutory provisions and constitutional provisions. Whether a writ petitioner may get relief he has sought for in the writ petition may be a question of uncertainty. That cannot be confused with availability of jurisdiction of this court for examining a cause. It is therefore we hold that it cannot be said that the present writ petitions are not maintainable before this court, as urged by learned counsel for respondents.
97. With regard to the statements of objections filed on behalf of the respondents - Universities in Tamilnadu and 143 private respondents who were its students and who have got M.Phil Degree through distance education mode that it is not open to the Tribunal or for this court to declare the Degree conferred by such Universities as invalid as that is not within the scope of the Tribunals or the Courts but is an academic matter to be left to the Academicians and as provided for in law is concerned, we notice that neither in the applications before the Tribunal nor in the writ petitions before this court, prayer is made by the applicants/writ petitioners for declaration that the Degree is invalid. On the other hand, argument is built upon the premise that these Universities have not adhered to the norms and guidelines stipulated by the DEC and on the other hand have started these courses without approval or recognition and therefore such Degrees are suspect and cannot be called a Degree with the same quality and content as conferred by other Universities in favour of candidates who have undergone regular course of study and passed the same in M.Phil and therefore such of the 144 private respondents should not have been given exemption from appearance in the NET and passing the same and also should not have been given weightage marks. Considerable amount of time is spent by learned counsel for respondents and by placing reliance on good number of authorities as noticed above, to contend that firstly courts cannot sit in appeal over the Degree conferred by the University recognized in law and secondly to submit that the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants - writ petitioners is flawed as the DEC regulations being not statutory regulations, cannot have mandatory binding effect and that non-adherence cannot make any difference to the Degree granted by these Universities.
98. We have also bestowed our consideration to the relevant submissions and are of the view that courts in the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review cannot and do not embark on declaring legality of a Degree, but can definitely issue directions to the University or the authority to take action as per law if it is found that the University or 145 Institutions conferring such Degrees are not conforming to the mandatory stipulations of law, particularly, under the UGC Act or under any other Act binding the Universities. However, after elaborate consideration of the developments hitherto and in the light of the conduct of UGC and DEC, both not frowning upon such Degrees and even positively validating the Degree by post facto approval of the courses in the earlier years, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for this court to interfere on this aspect and of course there was no occasion for the Tribunal to interfere and therefore the Tribunal cannot be characterized as having committed error or illegality in not going into this question. In this view of the matter, as we are holding that the court cannot grant validity of a Degree given by Institutions, it is recognized university or affiliated recognized university and it is only the University which can take action either for invalidating the Degree or for recalling the Degree, we are not going into the details of good number of authorities cited and relied upon by 146 learned counsel for petitioners in these writ petitions to contend that the Degree should be declared as not a valid degree as the question is not directly in issue and that is incidentally brought up for examination and likewise we do not go into the details of authorities relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Universities and private respondents - applicants before the KPSC who have contended that the Degree should be declared to be valid and the legal position as emerges from these authorities and application of the same to the facts of the present case as we are neither invalidating the Degree nor giving a certificate that it is a valid degree in the present order. We are just taking note of the position as it stands and are deciding the case on such premise.
99. We do find that a candidate holding M.Phil Degree has a great advantage over others who do not have, in the sense, firstly such applicant-candidates gets an exemption from appearance and passing in NET with minimum 50% marks and secondly, they get the advantage of 1% of marks 147 getting added by way of weightage to their marks obtained otherwise. In such a situation, it is true and as contended by learned counsel for petitioners that giving such concessions and benefits to students who appear to have somehow managed to acquire M.Phil Degree from a University which has not adhered to any standards or norms or stipulations and is only keen on conferring Degree on its students, the matter requires re-examination both at the level of UGC for continuing the exemption from pass in NET in respect of such persons who have acquired M.Phil Degree by distance education mode and also reconsideration on the part of the State Government, on the question of awarding weightage of 1% of marks even in respect of applicants who have such M.Phil Degree from the Universities who are conferring degrees through, distance education mode and not necessarily in an orderly manner but as of now the UGC instructions providing for exemption to persons possessing M.Phil Degree from appearance in NET and the State Government continuing with this rule 148 providing for weightage of one marks to M.Phil students and manner the UGC not making much distinction between the M.Phil Degree acquired by students who have undergone regular course of study and by those who acquired it by distance education mode and treating them on par, but we do not propose to interfere on this aspect notwithstanding attractive arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners.
100. The next question is as to sustainability of the finding of the tribunal that the awarding of weightage marks to guest lecturers for the experience in teaching is illegal and cannot be sustained and if so, if any further directions are required to be issued to the KPSC. In so far as this question is concerned, KPSC and private respondents through their counsel have strongly contended that the post of guest lecturers is on par with the post of part-time lecturers and in fact it was a substitute to part-time lecturers and therefore there is nothing wrong in awarding 149 marks for experience in favour of guest lecturers also and no interference is called for.
101. On the other hand, submission on behalf of the petitioners by learned counsel for petitioners is that when the recruitment rule does not provide for giving weightage marks to guest lecturers, it is not open to the commission by a process of logic and reasoning to extend the benefit of the award of weightage marks on that analogy.
102. The relevant rule in this regard is Rule 6-B of the 1993 special Rules providing for such weightage of marks and under proviso (a) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6-B, the weightage to be added for earlier teaching experience as lecturer is as under:
(a) a weightage at the rate of one per cent for each completed academic year of service shall be added to the average percentage of marks secured by the candidate in the Master's Degree in the relevant subject, if such candidate possesses teaching experience as lecturer in any college affiliated to any University established by law in India, including the candidate who has served as part-time Lecturer in 150 Government First Grade Colleges of the Department of Collegiate Education;
103. The rule is quite clear and explicit and provides for adding one percentage for each completed academic year of service if a candidate has teaching experience as lecturer in any college affiliated to the universities established under law in India and includes candidates who had served as part-time lecturer in government first grader colleges under the department of collegiate education. There is absolutely no mention of any guest lecturer qualifying for such weightage under this proviso and on the other hand it is conspicuously absent. One should bear in mind that it is under this rule such weightage is provided for and it cannot be added under any other provision, whether by KPSC or even the state government, in favour of persons having teaching experience otherwise than as stipulated under the Rule itself. An explanation that there is not much difference between a part-time lecturer and a guest lecturer cannot be found outside the rule and it should be 151 within the rule. So long as the rule does not provide for and does not contain the same, it is a clear violation of the rule, more so by giving undue advantage to such applicants over others and not an advantage or weightage provided for under the rule itself.
104. A selection list based on mark-wise merit list prepared by adding weightage percentage not provided for in law is definitely flawed and invalid. In fact, even the notification issued by the commission also has not made any such mention of the possibility of guest lecturers also getting weightage on par with other part-time lecturers. This also means that KPSC has acted contrary to its own conditions and stipulations mentioned in the notification and also contrary to Rule 6-B of the 1993 special rules.
105. In our considered opinion, the tribunal is very right in characterizing such award of marks in favour of guest lecturers as illegal, but has failed to issue commensurate directions to the commission based on such finding. After 152 examination of the rival contentions in these petitions also, we are of the same view and though it is alleged by Sri Subramanya Jois, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the private respondents that on equitable principle, the appointments should not be disturbed on the ground of equity, we find and hold that we cannot accept this submission for two reasons. Firstly, the appointments are made subject to the outcome of these writ petitions and secondly overlooking an illegality will amount to placing premium on such conduct of the KPSC. Awarding of an uncalled for weightage marks gives an undue advantage to a person getting it and amount to an arbitrary action on the part of KPSC in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It also amounts to denial of equal opportunity to such of those other guest lecturers who, perhaps, could have applied and competed for selection had it been notified that guest lecturers also qualify for getting weightage for experience.
153
106. Consequently, we direct the KPSC to redo the select list in respect of subjects sociology, political science, economics and history, in so far as persons arrayed as respondents in these writ petitions and also in the subject of English in respect of persons arrayed as respondents in Application No 861 of 2009 before the tribunal, against which order passed in this application, KPSC has preferred WP No 28569 of 2009, by deleting the percentage of marks awarded to such persons on the basis of experience gained as guest lecturers and finalize the select list based on merit and marks the candidates retained on such deletion and vis-à-vis writ petitioners. It is made clear that even after this exercise, if there are more meritorious candidates than the writ petitioners, it will only enure to the benefit of such other more meritorious candidates and not necessarily to the writ petitioners, unless they also qualify in the merit list on such basis. If a candidate who had been given weightage marks for his/her experience as guest lecturer, nevertheless, still manage to have a higher percentage of 154 marks and is eligible for selection on such premise, no need to disturb his/her present position. The state government is also directed to act accordingly in so far as the appointments are concerned. In fact, a revised select list should be forwarded by KPSC. In fact, the support given by the state government to this view through its statement of objections also has a great say in the matter and significant. Therefore, the state government is bound by this view and to act on such premise.
107. That leaves us with the various other irregularities pointed by Sri Shivaraj N Arali and Sri P S Rajagopal, learned senior counsel, and also M/s B M Shyam Prasad and Ajit, learned counsel for petitioners in these writ petitions. The irregularities pointed out are vis-à-vis individual applications and the learned counsel for petitioner have also given us a chart containing the kind of deficiency noticed by them on receipt of applications from each of the respondents mentioned in the chart and to contend that very receipt of the applications is in violation 155 of the notified compliance that were required to be fulfilled by the applicants and the availability or non-availability of MPhil degree on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, is not definite.
108. Learned counsel for KPSC had made available the original applications of such of those applicants whose applications had not been placed before the tribunal and learned counsel for petitioners have been enabled to go through the same and point out what are the anomalies in them. It is based on such premise, learned counsel for petitioners have prepared the chart showing the nature of violations by the applicants in submitting their applications before the KPSC.
109. In fact, though the tribunal itself had noticed many such violations, did not thought it fit to interfere, but enabled the applicants before it to submit their objections to the KPSC and the KPSC to take note of it and act on the same. The complaint by the learned counsel for 156 petitioners is that though such objections were filed individually by the applicants-writ petitioners, KPSC has mechanically rejected them and has stuck to its original stand that in the process of applications, no violations of rule or condition is involved.
110. We are not very satisfied about the manner of response given by the commission to the objections raised. A perusal of a few of the applications, in fact, leaves much to be desired, as it gives us an impression that KPSC has enabled some of the applicants even by going out of the way by receiving their applications and documents as and when made available and also giving an impression that applicants who possess MPhil degree acquired through distance education mode conferred on them by the six universities located in Tamilnadu and outside the state of Karnataka on the basis of study centres opened by them in the state of Karnataka are shown considerable leeway, indulgence and relaxation. Such an impression is gathered, as some of these applicants have submitted their 157 documents in instalments and even up to the date of interview, which was almost more than one year from the last date prescribed for receipt of applications.
111. It does leave a feeling that something is wrong somewhere and not everything is alright with the KPSC in receiving the applications or selection process thereafter. Though it is contended by Sri Reuben Jacob, learned counsel for the KPSC, that the commission has not received any applications beyond the last date and no original of the documents which were not made available either in the provisional form or as per the certificate issued by institutions have been received later and all originals and documents received at the time of interview had already been submitted in the form of copies earlier. We still have an uneasy feeling that all is not well with the functioning of KPSC. Non-receipt of applications in a uniform manner and not putting in date stamps on the receipt of the applications and the KPSC not even indicating as to when exactly the applications were forwarded to the KPSC from 158 its receiving centres located in the branches of some cooperative banks, all leaves a feeling of suspicion and possible malpractice in the functioning of the KPSC in these matters.
112. While being conscious of the scope of jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we did not propose to embark on a detailed enquiry or ascertaining only as to what exactly had happened and accepting the submissions of learned counsel for KPSC at their face value for whatever reasons, it does not mean that we are issuing a clean-chit or certificate in favour of KPSC in the manner of its functioning. While, we do not propose to interfere with the selection process on the premise of improper or irregular receipt of applications or documents, it does assume significance if the candidates without qualification acquired before the last date prescribed for receipt of applications, have, nevertheless, made applications and post facto have made good the qualification acquired subsequently, definitely is not valid 159 applications. For such purpose, we permit the writ petitioners to yet again point out the defects and deficiencies to the KPSC in respect of the applications of persons who have been arrayed as respondents in these writ petitions and direct the commission to examine them in an objective manner and on the touchstone of the stipulations prescribed in the notification and the rules governing the same. We also permit the state government to hold an independent enquiry and to ascertain the possible malpractices and if found to be proved or if any officials of the KPSC have indulged in such malpractice, to take commensurate punitive action against the erring officials and also to invalidate the selection and appointment of such beneficiary applicants who are party to such malpractices.
113. In the wake of the above discussion and conclusion, we answer point No.1 for our determination in the affirmative and hold that the applications were tenable 160 before the Tribunal and so also the writ petitions before this court.
114. With regard to point No.2 for determination, we find that relief is not given to the petitioners for declaration that M.Phil Degree conferred by these Universities in question located in Tamilnadu and having study centres in the State of Karnataka as invalid as we have found that in the present facts and circumstances, such a relief cannot be given and therefore this point is answered in the negative in favour of the respondents.
115. With regard to point No.3 for determination relating to award of service weightage marks to Guest Lecturers, we hold that it is illegal and being not contemplated under the rules governing the issue and does call for interference and we have directed the KPSC to delete the marks given to such candidates who have been given service weightage on the basis of experience as Guest Lecturers. Therefore, the point is answered in the affirmative and we issue directions to KPSC to redo the merit list in respect of the subjects 161 which are subjects matter of these writ petitions vis-à-vis respondents who have indicated to have been given service weightage for experience as Guest Lecturers, by deleting the service weightage marks for Guest Lecturers and then to arrange all applications of writ petitioners and private respondents on merit basis and finalize the list. Therefore, this point is answered in the affirmative and as indicated above directions are issued.
116. With regard to point No.4, we have already opined issue of guidelines and directions is very much necessary in the wake of the manner of functioning of the KPSC and also to ensure that at least henceforth, KPSC functions in a proper manner as the entire procedure is required to be streamlined and made more transparent and law and rule conforming. KPSC should treat all applicants alike even in the matter of extending some concessions or relaxation for the production of originals and there should not be any pick and choose method followed by it in this regard. 162
117. The KPSC also to always adhere to the rules governing the selection process and terms and conditions stipulated in the notification published by the KPSC inviting applications from eligible candidates. Therefore, this question is also answered in the affirmative and directions are issued.
118. In the result, writ petition Nos.26902-26914/2009, 26535-26539/2009, 25733-25739/2009, 25740- 25750/2009 & 26138/2013, 4309/2010 are all allowed in part and to the extent as discussed and indicated in the above order.
119. Writ petition No.28567/2009 filed by the KPSC is hereby dismissed as one not having any merit and not calling for interference.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *pjk, AN/-