Karnataka High Court
Dr Andani Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2017
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
®
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.19915/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dr. ANDANI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
G.K.V.K. U.A.S.
BANGALORE - 560 065.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA SENIOR ADV. FOR
MISS. SHILPA RANI, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K.V.K
BANGALORE-560 065.
2
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K.V.K
BANGALORE - 560 065.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R. SRIDHAR HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER TILL HE ATTAINS THE AGE OF 65 YEARS; QUASH
THE ORDER/LETTER DATED 25.10.2012 PASSED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS ARBITRARY, VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLES 14,16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, a Professor of Agronomy in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru - 560 065, filed this writ petition to quash the communication dated 25.10.2012 as at Annexure-E issued by the 3rd respondent, in so far as it relates to him and for issuing of a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents to continue him in service until the attaining of the superannuation age of 65 years.
3
2. By issuing Annexure-E, the 3rd respondent notified that the petitioner would retire from service on 31.05.2013, with the attaining of the superannuation age of 62 years. The petitioner claims that he having opted for UGC / ICAR Regulations, his service conditions should be regulated by the respondents accordingly and in view of the letter issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, dated 11.05.2010, revising the age of superannuation to 65 years in respect of the Central Institutions, Annexure-E is illegal, as he can remain in service of the University up to the age of 65 years. Reference was made to the Order dated 22.06.2011 passed in W.P. Nos.13449-453/2011, wherein it was directed that the age of superannuation of the Associate Professors, Principals and Librarians, who had opted for UGC Pay-scale shall be 65 years.
3. Statement of objections was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in justification of the decision to retire the petitioner as per Annexure-E with effect from 4 31.05.2013 and the fixation of age of superannuation of the Professors in the University at 62 years.
4. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Advocate contended that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to Teachers and other academic staff in the University and as such, the petitioner having opted for UGC / ICAR Regulations, the decision of the respondents vide Annexure-E is liable to be quashed and the respondents directed to pay the service benefits to the petitioner by treating him to have remained in service till attaining the superannuation age of 65 years. Extensive argument was advanced by making reference to the report of the UGC Committee constituted on 6th September, 2007 to review the pay-scales and service conditions of University and College Teachers, submitted during October, 2008. Attention was invited to the recommendation made with regard to age of superannuation appearing at para 5.4.2., that the age of superannuation of Teachers should be 65 years whether 5 working in a State or Central University as also whether in a College or in a University. Reliance was placed on the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions in the cases of (i) KALYANI MATHIVANAN Vs. K.V. JEYARAJ AND OTHERS, (2015) 6 SCC 363; (ii) UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Vs. NEHA ANIL BOBDE (GADEKAR), (2013)10 SCC 519; and STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DINESH SINGH CHAUHAN, (2016) 9 SCC 749.
5. Sriyuths M.Subramani and R.Sridhar Hiremath, learned advocates appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the respondent - University comes under the control of Agricultural Department and therefore the decision taken by the University vide Annexure-E, to relieve the petitioner on the afternoon of 31.05.2013 is proper. It was submitted that by a Government Order dated 24.03.2010, State Government revised the UGC / ICAR pay-scale of Teachers, Librarians and equivalent Cadres of the Agricultural and Horticultural Universities in the State of Karnataka and the said Government Order clearly stipulates that the 6 superannuation age of Teachers / Librarians of Agricultural Universities drawing UGC / ICAR pay-scale shall be 62 years with effect from 28.10.2009. It was further submitted that the said Government Order being applicable to the petitioner, he is not entitled to continue in the service of the University beyond the superannuation age of 62 years. Learned advocates contended that the issue raised for consideration in this petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment rendered in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. Dr. R. HALESHA AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2012 KAR 545, and thus, different view being not permissible on account of the law laid down regarding binding precedents.
6. In the writ petition, there is a reference to the Judgment dated 09.11.2011 passed in W.A. Nos.5670 and 15676-798 of 2011. The issue which was the subject matter of consideration therein is an identical one i.e., increasing the age of retirement / superannuation of Professors and Teachers working in the Universities and 7 Colleges in the State of Karnataka, up to the date on which they attain the age of 65 years. After consideration of the rival contentions and the stand taken by the UGC, that the subject directions are not mandatory so far as increase of the age of superannuation to 65 years even in respect of Teachers in Colleges in the State, it was held, that it is not for the Court to issue directions to the State Government to increase the age of superannuation to 65 years. The said judgment having been assailed by the writ petitioners was upheld by the Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (2013) 8 SCC 633, inter alia holding as follows:
" 78......There being no compulsion to accept and / or adopt the said Scheme, the States are free to decide as to whether the Scheme would be adopted by them or not. In our view, there can be no automatic application of the recommendations made by the Commission, without any conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard, on account of the financial implications and other consequences attached to such a decision. The case of those petitioners who have claimed that they should be given the benefit of the Scheme dehors the responsibility attached thereto, must, therefore, fail."8
7. It is trite that a learned Single Judge is bound by the decision of the Division Bench and has to follow the decision. Even if the learned Single Judge is inclined to take a view different from the one taken by another Co- ordinate Bench, there has to be a reference to the Division Bench for a ruling on the correct position of law. A learned Single Judge being bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench should apply the same and decide the case. If the decision is rendered by a learned Single Judge following the decision of the Division Bench, the parties are entitled to take up the matter before the Appellate Bench and put forth the arguments before the Appellate Bench with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the other Division Bench, which was followed and applied by the learned Single Judge. It would be for the Division Bench, if it is persuaded, to doubt the correctness of the view taken by another Division Bench. If a doubt is entertained, the Division Bench may have to formulate the points of law and make reference to the Full Bench for consideration.
9
8. The arguments addressed by Sri V. Lakshminarayana by relying upon decisions noticed supra and the report of the UGC Committee cannot be considered as the issue is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Dr. R. HALESHA (supra), which was upheld by the Apex Court in the case of JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA (supra).
Consequently, there being no scope at all for consideration of the arguments, as it is impermissible to deviate from the rule of precedents, having regard to the law laid down in the cases of Dr. R. HALESHA and JAGDISH SHARMA, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*