Karnataka High Court
Dr. Y.S. Sumathy vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.23131/2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. Y.S. SUMATHY
W/O SRI A MAHESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.F-442
PLUMERIA LIFE STYLE
BRIGADE MEADOWS
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 082.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAMY N.B.N., ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD, BANGALROE-560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
2
4. THE PRINCIPAL
DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
OUTER RING ROAD
MALLATHAHALLI, BANGALOE-560056.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG & SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI HARISH H.V., ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 3 TO APPROVE THE MERIT CUM ELIGIBLE LIST DATED 11.05.2022 ANNX-B WHICH IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY R4 PRINCIPAL DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BANGALORE FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGY IN DR. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BANGALORE FORTHWITH WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE LETTER 20.06.2024 ANNX-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT 3 CAV ORDER Petitioner, an aspirant to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Instrumentation Technology in fourth respondent-Institution is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to approve the merit cum eligible list dated 11.05.2022 - Annexure-B which is prepared and submitted by fourth respondent Principal, Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore for appointment of the petitioner as Associate Professor in the Department of Instrumentation Technology in Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore forthwith without reference to the letter dated 20.06.2024 Annexure-D."4
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the fourth respondent - Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Technology (for short, 'Institute') affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) Belagavi invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up various posts including that of Associate Professor in Instrumentation Technology by its recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-A) from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is also stated that the backlog posts would be filled up in terms of Rules regarding filing up of backlog posts. The petitioner, PH.D., holder in Biomedical Instrumentation with teaching experience of more than ten years in the relevant subject, applied for the said post. The fourth respondent-Institute invited applications in pursuance to approval granted by third respondent under Notification dated 30.01.2020. The last date for submitting application was 26.03.2020 which was extended till 29.05.2020. It is stated that the eligibility list was 5 published on 11.05.2022 for the post of Associate Professor in the department of Instrumentation Technology against the category of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has scored 1487 marks out of 2000 marks and stood in the top of the eligibility list. The eligibility list was forwarded to the third respondent for approval on 07.10.2022. As no action was taken on the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent for approval of petitioner's appointment as Associate Professor, the petitioner is said to have submitted representation on 23.11.2023 to respondent Nos.1 and 2. As they have failed to take any action, petitioner filed W.P.No.28814/2023 and this Court by order dated 06.02.2024 directed the third respondent to examine the merit list published on 11.05.2022 and pass appropriate order. Thereafter, by impugned letter dated 20.06.2024, the third respondent informed the fourth respondent to issue a corrigendum to the advertisement 6 dated 25.02.2020 to include that the recruitment would be in terms of AICTE Regulations of 2019. Questioning the said communication, petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction to approve the merit-cum- eligibility list dated 11.05.2022 submitted by the fourth respondent.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.N.B.N.Swamy for petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.Harish.H.V., for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fourth respondent issued recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020 to fill up various posts including that of the post in Instrumentation Technology on obtaining approval from the competent authority dated 7 30.01.2020. He submits that notice inviting application would not state as to whether it is in terms of AICTE norms, but he submits that the notice indicated that the filling up of posts would be in terms of rules to fill up backlog posts. He submits that the petitioner was qualified and eligible in terms of 2006 AICTE Regulations and the respondents ought to have completed the recruitment process in terms of the regulations which was in existence as on the date of issuance of recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020. Learned counsel would submit that the State Government is not justified in directing the fourth respondent to follow 2019 AICTE Regulations which was adopted by the first respondent- State Government only under Government Order dated 24.03.2020, subsequent to recruitment notification dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-A). Learned counsel would submit that 2019 AICTE Regulations insofar as the qualification is concerned for the post of Associate 8 Professor is revised. The said revised qualification would have no application to the already recruitment which are under process. Learned counsel in that regard places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS1 to contend that the eligibility criteria notified at the commencement of recruitment process cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant rules so permit or the advertisement. Further, learned counsel would submit that action of the respondent-State would amount to changing the rules of the game after commencement of the game. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob submits that the recruitment in the recognized affiliated University shall be in terms of 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2634/2013 DATED 07.11.2024 9 AICTE norms and where the AICTE pay scales are made applicable, norms prescribing by the AICTE shall be applied. He submits that the recruitment notice is dated 25.02.2020 and the last date indicated was 26.03.2020 which was subsequently extended till 29.05.2020. He submits that in the meanwhile, State Government has adapted AICTE 2019 Regulations by Government Order dated 24.03.2020. He submits that the AICTE Regulations notified on 01.03.2019 clearly states that where the advertisement was published, applications invited but interviews have not been conducted till publication of notification, institutions are required to publish corrigendum and processing of applications must be done in accordance with the revised 2019 Regulations. Therefore, he submits that the fourth respondent ought to have followed the 2019 AICTE Regulations for the recruitment in terms of Annexure-A, recruitment notice. Further, learned Additional Advocate 10 General would submit that the petitioner has no vested right for appointment and mere placing her in the select list would not confer her any right to seek appointment. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it would not amount to changing the rules since last date was 29.05.2020 before much AICTE norms were introduced by the State Government under Government Order dated 23.02.2024. Thus, learned Additional Advocate General would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Harish.H.V., for respondent No.4 referring to the statement of objections filed and also affidavit dated 01.02.2025 submits that respondent No.4 invited applications under Annexure-A recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020 as per the norms prescribed under 2006 AICTE Regulations. He submits that the provisional list of eligible candidates was 11 submitted on 09.09.2022. Further, in terms of impugned letter dated 20.06.2024, the fourth respondent published corrigendum by paper publication dated 06.08.2024 in Prajavani and Deccan Herald papers. Thus, learned counsel would submit that respondent No.4 has followed the direction issued by third respondent in its letter dated 20.06.2024 and further submits that respondent No.4 is ready to abide by any direction issued by the third respondent and orders that may be passed in the present writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing fourth respondent to follow AICTE 2019 Regulations would amount to changing rules of the game after commencement of the game?
12
8. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
The respondent No.4 invited applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts in the fourth respondent-Institution including that of Associate Professor in Instrumentation Technology. The posts notified were backlog posts and it also stated that the rules regarding filling up of backlog posts would be applicable. It is also seen that the recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020 was issued by the fourth respondent on obtaining approval from third respondent by its approval dated 30.01.2020. A perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it is clear that the recruitment notice was in pursuance to 2006 AICTE Regulations. The recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020 indicated the last date for submission of application as 26.03.2020. But during the course of hearing it was submitted that the last date for 13 submitting application was extended to 29.05.2020.
Much before the last date for submitting application, the State Government adopted 2019 AICTE Regulations by Government order dated 24.03.2020 (Annexure-R2).
9. The benefit of 2019 AICTE Regulations and arrears of pay on account of revision of pay was given effect to from 01.01.2016. Clause 17 of the Government Order reads as follows:
"17. RECRUITMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS:
a) Conditions governing eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to the post of Teachers and other academic staff in the degree level Engineering Colleges and degree level Technical Institutions/University and its constituent colleges shall be as specified in the "AICTE Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education-(Degree) Regulation, 2019"14
and amendments if any issued in this regard from time to time by AICTE read with the provisions of applicable rules of the State Government like the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and orders issued thereunder.
b) All other eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to the various level cadres shall be as specified in the applicable AICTE Regulations."
10. The above would make it clear that the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to the post of Teachers and other academic staff in the degree level Engineering Colleges and degree level Technical Institutions/University and its constituent colleges shall be as specified in the "AICTE Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualificatonis for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Degree) Regulation, 2019". The 2019 Regulations is 15 placed on record along with the statement of objections filed by Government as Annexure-R3. Clause 1.4 (g) of 2019 Regulations reads as follows:
"1.4(g) In cases, where advertisement was published, applications invited but interviews have not been conducted till publication of this notification, the institutes/employers are required to publish corrigendum and processing of applications must be done in accordance with the provisions given in this notification."
11. The above Clause makes it abundantly clear that where the advertisement was published, applications invited but interviews have not been conducted till publication of this notification, the institutes/employees are required to publish corrigendum and processing of applications must be done in accordance with the provisions of 2019 Regulations. Therefore, it is manifestly clear that 2019 AICTE Regulations would be applicable for the ongoing 16 process of recruitment, if the interviews have not been conducted.
12. In the case on hand, admittedly in pursuance to Annexure-A - recruitment notice dated 25.02.2020, last date for submitting application was extended up to 29.05.2020 and as on the date of Government order dated 24.03.2020 the date on which 2019 AICTE Regulations were adopted, interviews have not been conducted in pursuance to Annexure-A, notice of recruitment dated 25.02.2020. Therefore, the fourth respondent - Institute was required to issue corrigendum and ought to have proceeded with recruitment process under 2019 AICTE Regulations.
13. Insofar as qualification for recruitment of Associate Professor is concerned, there was slight change in the qualification with regard to publications and minimum experience. The qualification in terms of 17 AICTE 2006 Regulations and AICTE 2019 Regulations for the post of Associate Professor reads as follows:
Comparative Table of 6th and 7th AICTE Payscale (Engg. Colleges) in respect of Qualifications of Professor, Associate Professor & Assistant Professor Designation Qualification as per AICTE AICTE 6th Payscale Order Regulations, 2019 (2006 Regulation) dated:
01.03.2019 Associate Qualification as above that is for (a) Ph.D degree in the Professor - the post of Assistant Professor, as relevant field and First Engineering applicable and Ph.D or equivalent, Class or equivalent at Subjects in appropriate discipline. either Bachelor's or Master's level in the relevant branch AND Post Ph.D publications and (b) At least total 6 guiding Ph.D student is highly research publications in desirable. SCI journals / UGC/AICTE approved list of journals. AND Minimum of 5 years experience in c) Minimum of 8 years teaching/research/industry of of experience in which 2 years post Ph.D teaching / research / experience is desirable industry out of teaching/which at least 2 years shall be Post Ph.D experience.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK 18 AND OTHERS (supra) to contend that the eligibility criteria notified on the commencement of the process cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process which would amount to changing the rules of the game after commencement of the game. The said decision would have no application to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, recruitment notice is dated 25.02.2020, last date for submitting application was extended to 29.05.2020. Much before the last date, the State Government has adapted AICTE 2019 Regulations under Government Order dated 24.03.2020 (Annexure-R2). The AICTE Regulations require or makes it abundantly clear that where the recruitment notice is issued inviting applications, but interviews have not been conducted, to issue corrigendum and proceeded in accordance with AICTE 2019 Regulations. The above fact is the distinguishable feature to say that decision in TEJ 19 PRAKASH PATHAK AND OTHERS (supra) would have no application.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH2 was considering Article 141 of the Constitution of India and what is binding. While considering the issue of binding nature under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, at paragraph 9, 10 and 11 has held as follows:
"9. The courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of the courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a 2 (2006) 1 SCC 368 20 statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define.
Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] Lord MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge...."
10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)] Lord Reid said : (All ER p. 297g-h) "Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances."
Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 :
(1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed : (All ER p.
1274d-e) "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament;" and, 21 in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 : 1972 AC 877 (HL)] Lord Morris said : (All ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case."
11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper."
16. The above decision has made it clear that the circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.
17. The petitioner whose name find place in the select list has no vested right for appointment. Moreover, to maintain standard of education, every institution shall adhere to the norms prescribed by the AICTE. No recruitment shall take place contrary to the 22 standard of education, qualification and eligibility criteria fixed by AICTE.
18. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC.
CT:bms