Karnataka High Court
Dr. Parappa Shankarappa Mundinamani ... vs The Secretary To Government, Education ... on 18 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR282, 1999(1)KARLJ397
ORDER
1. There are twenty seven petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. They are in the teaching cadres of respondent-Karnataka University ('the University', for short). Petitioners 11, 12, 13, 24, 26 and 27 have already retired on superannuation. They have approached this Court for directing the respondent-University to give them consequential benefits pursuant to grant of time bound promotions under order dated 19-7-1994 (Annexure-L).
2. Four teachers of the respondent-University namely, Sri S.K. Daniel, Sri F.V. Yavagal, Dr. S.G. Kadarmandalagi and Dr. S.R. Narap-panavar had filed Writ Petition No. 8505 of 1994 for directing the University and the State Government to consider their cases for grant of time bound promotions with consequential benefits which according to them was arbitrarily denied. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by its order dated 21-4-1994 in the following terms:
"From the facts narrated and arguments advanced it is clear that authorities committed a mistake in discriminating the nature of work the Demonstrators/Tutors carrying on the one hand and Research Assistants, Senior Research Assistants, Micro Analysts, etc., on the other. Now it is established that Research Assistants and persons holding other allied posts were also attached to teaching and in fact were discharging the duties of a tutor. Services rendered by Senior Research Assistants when compared to Demonstrators were quite superior, so also the qualification, when both persons were placed similarly, it was incorrect to ignore the case of the petitioners and accept only the case of Demonstrators and Tutors by giving particular assent amended statute. When the University made a suggestion to treat both on par and extend the facilities Chancellor should have considered the said suggestion instead of withholding it. The position of Research Assistants and Instructors working in UAS and Bangalore University were almost identical with that of the petitioners. When the case of those persons was accepted and given the benefit of time-bound promotion taking into consideration their long standing experience, nature of work turned out, qualification possessed, the same benefit should have been given to the petitioners and others similarly placed, working in Karnataka University as their case is in no way different with that of those working in UAS and Bangalore University. The scale of pay given to the Demonstrators, Tutors, Research Assistants were almost equal and identical. Nature of work was again identical. As such time-bound promotion should have been given to the petitioners also. No reason why suggestion made at Annexure-F by the University was not assented in toto by the Chancellor partially. When all the posts were upgraded as shown at Annexures-A to D, case of the petitioners also should have been considered. Correct understanding of arguments advanced by both sides will lead to an inference that the approach of the respondents was not correct. On the other hand it was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. The contentions raised by the petitioners if understood properly they deserved to be accepted as correct.
Hence the writ petition is allowed. Orders at Annexures-G and J are quashed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for time-bound promotion from the date on which they are entitled to with all other consequential benefits. Compliance in 3 months".
3. The State Government and the Chancellor of the University questioned the above judgment of the learned Single Judge by filing Writ Appeal No. 2349 of 1995. But at their own instance, the same was dismissed by an order dated 18-6-1997 (Annexure-P) as having become infructuous. As such the law declared by the learned Single Judge and the directions issued by him became binding both on the State Government as also on the Chancellor.
4. Subsequently, the University under its order dated 19-7-1994 (An-nexure-L) granted time-bound promotions to 43 teachers including the petitioners herein as also the four petitioners in the above said Writ Petition No. 8505 of 1994. Thereafter, the Senate of the University passed appropriate statutes for giving consequential benefits of time-
bound promotions to all the 43 persons who had been given the benefit of promotion under Annexure-L and sent it to the Government for submission to the Chancellor for his assent under its letter dated 21-3-1998. But as it has now come on record, strangely the statutes are still lying pending consideration with the Government. It is worth to notice here with certain amount of concern that the State Government instead of submitting the statutes to the Chancellor for his assent, under its letter dated 15-4-1998 directed the University to extend the consequential benefits of time-bound promotion to only four of the teachers who had approached this Court in the above referred W.P. No. 8505 of 1994. In the background of these factual developments two pertinent questions of law arise, namely:
"(i) whether it is competent on the part of the State Government to give directions to the University for according certain benefits arising out of employment to any teaching or non-teaching staff of the University contrary to the statutes or in the absence of any relevant statutes in that regard? And
(ii) whether the State Government can retain the draft statutes sent to it for submission to the Chancellor beyond three months of the date on which it was received from the University?"
5. I have heard Sri Vigneshwara Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Vijaya Shankar, learned Advocate-General and Smt. V. Vidya, High Court Government Pleader, for respondent 1 and Sri N.B. Bhat, learned Counsel for the University.
6. The respondent-University has been established and incorporated under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 ('the Act', for short). Elaborate provisions have been made under the Act with regard to the powers and functions of the University, its officers and the role which the State Government can play in administration of the functions of the University. So far as the conditions of service of the employees of the Universities are concerned, those are to be laid down by duly framed statutes in terms of Section 35(m) of the Act. The provisions read thus:
"35. Statutes.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the statutes may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely.-
(a) to (1).....(not relevant for the present)
(m) the conditions of service including emoluments of the employees of the University".
7. Section 36 provides for making of statutes, which reads thus:
"36. The Statute -- Their making.--(1) The Statutes may be made, amended or repealed by the Senate in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) The Senate may take into consideration the draft of a statute either of its own motion or on a proposal made by the Syndicate. When the draft is not proposed by the Syndicate, the Senate shall obtain the opinion of the Syndicate thereon before considering the same:
Provided that if the Syndicate fails to submit its opinion within three months from the date it receives the draft, the Senate may proceed to take the draft into consideration.
(3) The Senate if it thinks necessary, may also obtain the opinion of any officer, authority or body of the University in regard to the draft statutes before it takes them into consideration:
Provided that where such draft statutes pertain to academic matters, the Senate shall obtain the opinion of the Academic Council before considering it.
(4) Every statute passed by the Senate shall be sent to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for assent. The State Government shall transmit the statutes along with its comments to the Chancellor within three months of the date on which it received the statutes from the University. The Chancellor may within one month of the date of receipt of the statutes from the State Government give or withhold his assent thereto or refer it to the Senate for further consideration.
(5) No statute passed by the Senate shall have validity until assented to by the Chancellor".
8. A reading of sub-section (4) of Section 36 makes it mandatory on the part of the State Government to submit the statute sent by the Senate for consideration of the Chancellor within three months of the date on which it is received by it. Thereafter, the Chancellor has to take a final decision with regard to the grant of approval to the statute within one month from the date of its receipt from the State Government. In the present case, as noticed above, the statutes were received by the Government on 25-3-1998 but the Government has not submitted the same for consideration of the Chancellor till this date, though now almost six months have elapsed. Some explanation is sought to be furnished for not complying with the said statutory obligation. But to my mind no explanation, howsoever persuasive can be accepted so as to ignore the laches regarding statutory compliance. The Government is duty bound to submit the statutes sent by the University to the Chancellor for his assent within the time limit fixed under the Universities Act.
9. The learned Advocate-General has submitted that the lapse in the present case may be ignored as a one time measure with an assurance that there will be strict compliance with the legislative mandate with a further assurance that within one month from today the Government will submit the statutes in question to the Chancellor for due consideration.
10. So far as the second question regarding powers of the State Government to give directions to the Universities are concerned, despite turning of each page of the Universities Act both by the learned Advocate-General as also the Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the University, no provision could be located under which the State Government can give a direction to the University with regard to the discharge of its functions or pertaining to the matters which are to be essentially governed by the statutes which are framed under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Act. In that view of the matter it is expected rather directed that the State Government should henceforth forbear from giving any direction to any University established under the Universities Act which are required to be governed by the specific statutory provisions or the delegated legislations like the statutes. Any violation in this regard on the part of the Government will be dealt with as committing contempt of this Court. I find making of such observation is necessary because in various cases I have found that the Government, of late, have been prevailing on the Universities which are creatures of the Act by treating those as departments of the Government. This impression needs to be dispelled.
11. With the above said observations and directions the present writ petition is being allowed by holding that the Government will submit the statutes in question to the Chancellor within four weeks from today and on being so received, the learned Chancellor will take appropriate decision regarding grant of assent to it within a month thereof by giving due regard to the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8505 of 1994, dated 21-4-1994 (K.S. Daniel and Others v State of Karnataka and Others) referred to above, which cannot be restricted only to the petitioners in the said case but has to be extended to all the persons who are similarly situated. Anyhow there will no order as to costs.