Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivakrishna S D vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 11 June, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20417
WP No. 38482 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 38482 OF 2012 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAKRISHNA S D
S/O SRI DASEGOWDA M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
LIBRARY ASSISTANT,
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
HASSAN573225.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
G.K.V.K. CAMPUS,
BANGALORE560065.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE REGISTRAR
NARASIMHA (PRESENTLY ADMINISTRATOR)
MURTHY
VANAMALA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULUTAL SCIENCE
Location: G.K.V.K CAMPUS,
HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE560065.
KARNATAKA
3. THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRTARY & DIRECTOR- GENERAL,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI110001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20417
WP No. 38482 of 2012
4. THE DEAN
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE,
AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
HASSAN573225.
5. SRI PAPE GOWDA M
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
GKVK, CAMPUS,
BANGALORE560065.
6. SRI NAGANNA N
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,
O/O THE DEAN (AGRICULTURAL)
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
V C FARM, MANDYA,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
7. SRI SUBHRAMANI M K
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,
O/O THE DEAN ( FORESTS)
FOREST UNIVERSITY,
PONNAMPET - 571 501.
8. SRI ESHWAR Y
AGED MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,
O/O THE DEAN ( AGRICULTURE)
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
NAVILE, SHIMOGGA,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.S. SACHIN., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R4;
SRI. K.C. SHANTHA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20417
WP No. 38482 of 2012
R8; R3 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 11/31.7.12, VIDE ANN-R, ISSUED BY
THE R2 & AFTER PERSUSAL OF THE SAME SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT; SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 7.7.09, VIDE ANN-K IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO ABSORPTION OF THE SERVICES OF THE
R5 TO R8 TO UPGRADED POSTS OF ASST. LIBRARIAN
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's Administrative Order dated 11/31.07.2012 [Annexure-R], and this order in its operative portion is under:
In pursuance of the orders dt.28-05-2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.22283/2011, the representations of Mr. S. D. Shivakrishna Library Assistant (counted against the post of Assistant Librarian on his own pay and grade) Agricultural College, Hassan, as per Annexures S dt.21.05.2010, S-1 dt 23.08.2010, T dt. 20.11.2010, T-1 dt 27-04-2011, T-2 dt.03-05- -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012 2011, to Writ Petition and his representation dt.16-06-2012 are examined in detail and found that he is not entitled for upgradation to the post of Assistant Librarian with effect a from 5-06- 2009 for the reasons stated under the preamble. Mr. S.D. Shivakrishna cannot contend that he is similarly situated with the other Library Assistants who have been upgraded as Assistant Librarians.
In fact, those Library Assistants who have been upgraded as Assistant Librarians were appointed as Library Assistants prior to the issue of Notification dt. 25-09-2007 that was published in the Gazette on 04-10-2007, stipulating the qualification, scale of pay and service conditions of Assistant Librarian. Accordingly, passing of NET examination is one of the prerequisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Librarian. Mr. S.D. Shivakrishna was appointed as Library Assistant subsequent to the issue of Notification dt.25-09-2007. Therefore, he has no claim for upgrading him to the post of Assistant Librarian without passing NET Examination besides fulfilling other conditions prescribed for the post of Assistant Librarian.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012
2. Sri Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the submissions by Sri B.S.Sachin, the learned counsel for the first, second and fourth respondents, that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner's request is considered with he being given promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian with all consequential benefits with effect from 14.10.2013. However, Sri Vijay Kumar contends that the petitioner ought to have been given this promotion with effect from the day on which similarly placed fifth to eighth private respondents have been given such promotion.
3. Sri Vijay Kumar elaborates contending that the National Eligible Test [NET] was made compulsory at the first instance by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research vide its Communication dated 11.08.1994 and by the UGC while prescribing minimum qualification by the Communication dated 24.12.1998 and therefore NET -6- NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012 was compulsory even before 29.05.2007. The private respondents are promoted notwithstanding these stipulations and that they had not qualified NET, but the petitioner is refused the promotion on par with the private respondents only on the ground that they were appointed prior to 29.05.2007 the day on which the University Regulations and Statutes have been amended making it compulsory.
4. Sri B. S. Sachin, on the other hand, relying upon this Court's order dated 28.05.2012 in W.P.No.22283/2011, submits that this Court has held that the UGC Guidelines exempting NET qualification for those who possessed M. Phil or Ph. D would not applicable to the University because of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) stipulation. The learned counsel contends that therefore, the petitioner, who claims exemption from NET, cannot seek promotion unless he qualifies in NET. Sri B. S. Sachin underscores that however, -7- NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012 because the petitioner claims parity with the private respondents who have also been given promotion though they have not qualified in NET on completion of five years, the petitioner is also accordingly granted promotion on completion of five years in the feeder cadre.
5. This Court's order dated 28.05.2012 in W.P.No.22283/2011 relevant for the purposes of a decision in the present case reads as under:
"UGC in their communication dated 07.03.2006 specified that Agricultural Universities do not come within their purview. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the UGC exempting the NET qualification to candidates who possessed Ph.D. and M. Phil Degree is not applicable to the respondent University. On the other hand, respondent University is governed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). The ICAR in their Communication dated 20.07.2006 specified that they will not give any exemption of NET qualification to the candidates who possessed Ph.D. Degree and M.Phil. Degree. By following the guidelines issued by the ICAR the respondent University declined the claim of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012 petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian on the ground that he do not possess NET qualification. This reasoning of the respondent University in the impugned endorsement is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same."
6. There is no dispute that NET is compulsory in terms of the stipulations by both ICAR and UGC, but UGC has exempted NET for those with Ph.D. and M. Phil. Further, this Court's decision in the aforesaid writ petition is that the UGC Guidelines which contemplate exemption from NET examination for those who possessed Ph.D. and M. Phil would not apply to the University. It follows that the petitioner, to be entitled to the promotion to the post of Assistant Librarian, had to successfully complete NET.
7. However, the University, as a concession, has granted promotion to the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that he has not acquired -9- NC: 2024:KHC:20417 WP No. 38482 of 2012 NET qualification. This Court cannot opine that the petitioner, only because of such concession, would be entitled for promotion from the day the private respondents have been granted promotion especially with the first respondent/University asserting that the private respondents, like the petitioner, have been granted promotion on completion of five years in the feeder cadre.
Hence, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA ct:sr