Karnataka High Court
Sri S.C. Chandrashekar vs Dr. S. Rajendra Prasad on 8 September, 2022
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
-1-
CCC No. 424 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 424 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI S.C. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O CHANNEGOWDA,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 1014, 'BELAKU',
1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560040.
2. SRI. SRIKANTAIAH,
S/O LATE N. CHANNAIAH,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 26, SUSWARA,
5TH CROSS ROAD,
BASAVESWARA LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU 590094.
Digitally signed by 3. SRI M.N. NARSIMHA REDDY,
USHA S/O NARAYANA REDDY,
NAGENAHALLI AGE: 70 YEARS,
SHANMUKHAPPA
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka R/O HARI KRUPA, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
Y.S. GUNDAPPA LAYOUT,
CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA 563125.
-2-
CCC No. 424 of 2021
4. SRI N. JANKIRAMAN,
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O OPPOSITE MAHARISHI VIDYA MANDIR,
SOLAR CITY, SRINIVASPUR ROAD,
THORDYAVANDA HALLI POST,
TQ. DIST KOLAR 563101.
5. SRI M.K. BASWARAJ,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 163, KALPARUKSHA,
1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS , KRUSHI NAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
6. SRI R. VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 2, OMKAR RESIDENCY,
M. NARAYANSWAMY BLOCK,
5TH CROSS, A SECTOR, AMRUTHANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560092.
7. SRI R. CHANDRU
S/O K. G. RAJENDRA SWAMY,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 26, MAALIGEMANE,
NEAR AURBINDO SCHOOL,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
VIDYRANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU 560097.
8. SRI MALLIKARJUN G.B.
S/O BASAPPA G
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 267, 8TH MAIN ROAD,
-3-
CCC No. 424 of 2021
KSRTC LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU 560078.
9. SRI HONNAIAH,
S/O LATE T.H. BRAHMESHWARAIAH,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 158, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
GKVK LAYOUT, JAKKUR,
BENGALURU 560064.
10. SRI K. N. CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA K
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
R/O H. NO. 246, 23RD CROSS, 23RD MAIN,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
GKVK POST, BENGALURU 560064.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. AMITKUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD,
THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GKVK, BENGALURU 560065.
2. DR. G. N. DHANAPAL,
THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GKVK, BENGALURU 560065.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.1 AND 2)
*****
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
-4-
CCC No. 424 of 2021
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY THE COMPLAINANTS PRAYING
TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE AND SHOWING UTTER
DISRESPECT TO THE DIGNITY OF THIS COURT FOR VIOLATION
AND NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN THE
ORDER DATED 25.07.2017 IN W.P.NO.37906-37910/2012 AND
W.P.NO.43589-43596/2012 (S-PRO), ANNEXURE-B AND
PUNISH THEM BY PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In pursuance of the order, dated 1.9.2022, passed by this Court, Sri Anil Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the complainants appears before this Court physically.
2. The complainants have filed the present contempt petition to take action against the accused under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging disobedience of the order, dated 25.7.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.37906 to 37910/2012 and connected matters wherein while allowing the writ petitions directed the accused-University to consider the case of the complainants in accordance with the Notifications dated 14.1.2000 and 15.7.2005 Annexures-A and B respectively to the writ petitions with reference to the order -5- CCC No. 424 of 2021 dated 18.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.17/2008 at paragraph-5. The University was further directed to communicate this order to the Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Shivamogga in case of petitioner Nos.11, 12 and 13 therein since they were working on bifurcation at Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Shivamogga and in turn, the Zonal Agricultural Research Station Shivamogga was directed to consider the case of the complainants in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
3. Accordingly, Sri Amit Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Ganesh Subhashchandra Kalburgi, learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that though an endorsement has been issued on 17.10.2020, Annexure-H, stating that the accused had counter merit and not on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.17/2008 wherein paragraphs-14 and 15 read as under:
"14. The decision in WP No. 17/2008 is in no way helpful in granting the promotion to non Ph.D teachers in the absence of conflicting -6- CCC No. 424 of 2021 directions from UGC & ICAR. On the other hand, ICAR in its letter dated: 27-03-2003 has clarified that Ph.D is an essential qualifications for the posts of Professor and Associate Professor/Reader in Agricultural Universities.
15. The order under challenge dated 04-05- 2012 issued by the Administrative Officer which was quashed in W.P No. 37906-
37910/2012 and 43589-43596/2012 dated 25-07-2012, had not made a reference of clause 10.b of the Government order dated 14-01-2000 and 1.b of the Notification dated 15-07-2005 and therefore, the validity and the scope of these provisions have not been noticed at all. So long as the above clauses are operative, Associate Professor not possessing Ph.D have no legal right to be considered as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. Consequently, the Board of Management in its 386th meeting held on 01.09.2020 declined to grant approval for promotion for associate Professors without Ph.D to that of Professor Post exercising the powers vested by clause 10 of the Notification dated 15.07.2005."-7- CCC No. 424 of 2021
Thereby the complainants were compelled to file the present contempt petition on 17th June, 2021 contending that the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17/2008 wherein paragraph-5 reads as under:
"5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would oppose the petition and place reliance on Annexure-"R2" which is a clarification issued by the ICAR to the effect that a pass in NET is compulsory for selection to the post of Assistant Professors. This apparently is of the year 2006 whereas there are notifications issued by the UGC itself. However, in view of the fact that the UGC has categorically specified that it would not be compulsory in so far as the candidates who possess Ph.D. to pass NET examination, will have to be given effect to, and the clarification issued by the ICAR would not be consistent with the guideline issued by the UGC, which is the competent body to prescribe these guidelines, as there is no dispute that ICAR is subordinate to UGC and would be bound by the guidelines issued by the UGC. In that view of the matter, the petition would have to be allowed in the face of it. "-8- CCC No. 424 of 2021
It is further contended that inspite of the said order having reached finality, the accused have not complied with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17/2008 and the endorsement issued now after the lapse of more than 14 years is nothing but willfully disobeying the orders. Thereby, the accused are liable to be punished in view of the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He further contended that immediately after passing of the order dated 25.7.2017 in Writ Petition Nos.37906 to 37910/2012 and 43589-43596/2012, the accused approached this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.5649 and 6267-6278/2017 which came to be as withdrawn on 11th December, 2017 and thereafter, only on 17.10.2020, an endorsement has been issued which is in clear violation of the order and thereby the accused are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore, he sought to allow the contempt petition.
4. Per contra, Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for the accused drawing our attention to the order, dated 25.7.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.37906 to 37910/2012 and 43589- -9- CCC No. 424 of 2021 43596/2012 wherein the University was directed to consider the case of the complainants in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in the light of the order dated 18.11.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.17/2008, contended that though the proceedings were started in the year 2017, after the writ appeals filed by the accused were withdrawn on 11.12.2017 and after correspondence, the case of the complainants was considered on 17.10.2020 in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and an endorsement has been issued stating that there was no violation of any orders passed by this Court. It is submitted that there was a delay in passing the said order due to administrative reasons. He would further contend that the allegation of the complainants that they have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order is totally incorrect and hence, sought to dismiss the contempt petition.
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the learned Single Judge by the order dated 25th July 2017 made in Writ Petition Nos.37906 to 37910/2012 and 43589-43596/2012 directed the
- 10 -
CCC No. 424 of 2021University/accused to consider the case of the complainants in accordance with law and pass appropriate order in the light of the order, dated 18.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.17/2008 at paragraph-5 taking into consideration the notifications dated 14.1.2000 and 15.7.2005 Annexures-A and B respectively to the writ petitions. Though the complainants submit that this Court by the order dated 18.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.17/2008 wherein at paragraph-5 it was specifically held that the learned Counsel for the respondents would oppose the petition placing reliance on Annexure-R2 which is a clarification issued by the ICAR to the effect that a pass in NET is compulsory for selection to the post of Professors. This apparently was of the year 2006 whereas there are notifications issued by the UGC itself. However, in view of the fact that the UCG has categorically specified that it would not be compulsory in so far as the candidates, who possess Ph.D to pass NET examination, will have to be given effect to and the clarification issued by the ICAR would not be consistent with the guidelines issued by the UGC, which is the competent body to prescribe these guidelines, so there is no dispute that ICAR is subordinate to UGC and would be bound by
- 11 -
CCC No. 424 of 2021the guidelines issued by the UGC. In that view of the matter, the petition would have to be allowed in the face of it.
6. Based on the aforesaid order, the present order is passed by the learned Single Judge directing the accused to consider the case of the complainants. The fact remains the learned Single Judge relying upon paragraph-5 of the order dated 18.11.2011 passed in W.P.No.17/2008 stated supra directed the accused to consider the case of the complainants in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The contention of the learned Counsel for the complainants is to the effect that the accused-University ought to have considered the case of the complainants and passed orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, but according to the learned Senior Counsel for the accused, the order passed by this Court has been received one month after the order was passed and the accused have preferred an appeal i.e., Writ Appeal No.5649/2017 and connected matter. Even considering the date of receipt of the order as 24.11.2017, the accused-University ought to have passed orders on or before 24.02.2018. Admittedly, the impugned
- 12 -
CCC No. 424 of 2021orders are passed by the University on 17.10.2020 nearly after three years.
7. Though the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Shashikiran Shetty for the accused-University is that the contempt petition is filed on 17th June, 2021 but as the accused/University has passed the order on 17.10.2020, the present contempt petition is not maintainable, the fact remains that the contempt petition is filed mainly on the ground that in the light of the said endorsement particularly paragraphs-14 and 15, there is an assertion that so long as the Clause 10.b of the Government order dated 14.1.2000 and Clause 1.b of the Notification dated 15.7.2005 are operative, Associate Professor not possessing Ph.D., have no legal right to be considered as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. Thereby the present contempt petition is filed.
8. On scrutinizing the material on record, this Court cannot decide the validity of the endorsement in the contempt proceedings and it is for the complainants to pursue, if they are aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2020 before the appropriate forum.
- 13 -
CCC No. 424 of 2021
9. The accused-University ought to have passed the orders on or before 24.11.2017, but the same has not been done and at last, they have passed an order/given an endorsement dated 17.10.2020 nearly after three years which shows that there is deliberate and willful disobedience on the part of the University-accused and as such, they are liable for costs.
10. Though the contempt petition is filed on 17th June, 2021 subsequent to the endorsement issued on 17.10.2020 and because of the fact that the complainants have been dragged to file the present contempt petition and are made to suffer mentally and financially to engage the learned Senior Counsel, the accused are liable to pay compensation to the complainants by paying litigation expenses for the delay in issuing the endorsement and we deem it proper to impose costs of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the accused to the complainants, within a period of four weeks from today.
11. Sri Anil Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the complainants submits that since there are ten
- 14 -
CCC No. 424 of 2021complainants, costs may be paid to complainant No.1/Sri S.C. Chandrashekar S/o Channegowda, who is a retired Associate Professor. The said submission is placed on record.
12. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped subject to payment of costs of `.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by the accused to complainant No.1, within a period of four weeks from today;
ii) It is needless to observe that it is always open for the complainants to challenge the order dated 17.10.2020, if so aggrieved, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Nsu/-