Karnataka High Court
B.K. Srinivasa vs The Bangalore University on 6 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19602
WP No. 9582 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.9582 OF 2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
B.K. SRINIVASA
AGEDA BOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE B. R. KRISHNA MURTHY RAO
WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BENGALURU-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANABHARATHI
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S
BENGALURU-560 056
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE BANGALORE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19602
WP No. 9582 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 22.11.2018
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H, PERUSE AND
QUASH THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATION OF
THE ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAYDOWN BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE CASE OF V. RAMAKRISHNA IN
W.P.NO.12266/1981 BY ORDER DATED 19/20.9.1985 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J1, IN THE CASE OF J.H.MARIGOWDA IN
W.P.NO.13203/2005 BY ORDER DATED 4.10.2005 AND
CHANDRASEKHAR N. VIDE ANNEXURE-J2, IN TEH CASE OF
W.P.NO.13666/2017 BY ORDER DATED 24.4.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J3 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged notification dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure-H) interalia sought for direction to the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this -3- NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 Court mentioned at Annexures-J1 to J3. The prayer No.3 in the writ petition, which reads as under:
" iii. Issue a consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in Bangalore University and service till he attains the age of 62, as he is a Technical Staff cum Teaching Staff of the University, in view of the law declared by the this Hon'ble and as per the UGC guidelines and Bangalore University Rules and to extend to the petitioner consequential benefits including service benefits and monetary benefits."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was appointed by the respondent-University on 24.10.1987 for the post of Technical Assistant for Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA) and thereafter, the respondent-University has considered the post of the Technical Assistant as a teaching post and not a teaching post and accordingly, the post was sanctioned by UGC as per Annexure-D to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has approached the respondent-University to -4- NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 consider the post of Technical Assistant as a Teaching Post for the purpose of retirement benefits. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part to the respondent-University, the petitioner has challenged impugned notification dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure-H to the writ petition). Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Ranganatha S.Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1- University. Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with as per order dated 14.02.2023.
4. Sri Ranganath S. Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the letter dated 19.02.1985 (Annexure-E) whereby, the Registrar of the respondent-University has stated that, the said post is approved for creation of posts, namely:
1. Reader- 1 post,
2. Lecturers -2 posts and
3.Technical Assistants -2 posts.-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 Sri Ranganath S. Jois, further nvited the attention of the court to order dated 09.09.1987 (Annexure-F2), wherein it is stated that petitioner has been appointed as Technical Assistant for a period of one year and the petitioner all along, was teaching and guiding the students in the respondent-University and in all probability, the petitioner, though has been appointed as Technical Assistant, conducting computer practical classes for the students in the respondent-University and accordingly, drew the attention of court to the judgment of this court refereed to at Annexures- J1 to J3 and argued that, the petitioner is a Teacher in the respondent-University and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-University drew the attention to averments made in the Statement of Objections, particularly, order dated 15.07.1988 in W.P.No.8903 of 1998 (Annexure-R2) and Endorsement dated 08.10.1998 (Annexure- R3) issued by the respondent-University to the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 petitioner. Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel vehemently contended that though the case of the petitioner has been rejected as per Endorsement dated 08.10.1998 and same has reached finality as the petitioner has not challenged the same nor the said rejection order is reflected in the averments in the writ petition, and therefore, he contended that, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. He also referred to the letter dated 21.06.1999 (Annexure-R4) stating that, the petitioner himself has admitted that he is working under category of non-teaching post and in that view of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University argued that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the writ petition, wherein, perusal of the appointment letter (Annexure- F1) issued by the respondent-University pursuant to the notification dated -7- NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 03.12.1986 (Annexure-C) would indicate that, the required qualification for the post of Technical Assistant reads as under:
QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE:
i) For Post at Sl.No.1 i.e. Computer Programmer.
(a) Must be a holder of Bachelor's Degree in Engineering Electrical / Electronics or Bachelor's Degree in Science mathematics/Statistics;
(b) Must have not less than one year experience in the job of Programming in a Computer Installation;
(c) Must be able to guide students in writing and executing their programs.
ii) For post at Sl.No.2 i.e. Computer Operator.
(a) Must be holder of Bachelor's Degree of University or equivalent qualification;
(b) Must have not less than two years experience on the Computer Console and Data Entry Machines in any computer installation;
(b) Must be able to guide students to use the console and data entry machine;
iii) For the Post at Sl.No.3 i.e. Technical Assistant:
(a) Must be holder of Bachelor's Degree in Electrical or Electronics or Bachelor's Degree in Science, Mathematics / Commerce / Economics;-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019
(b) Must have not less than two years experience on the Computer Console and Data Entry machines in any Computer installation;
(c) Must be able to guide students to use the console and Data entry machines and in writing and executing their programme.
7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the various judgment passed by this Court at Annexures- J1 to J3, to substantiate that the post of Technical Assistant could be considered as a Teaching Post, however, taking into consideration the observation made by this Court, in W.P.No.8903 of 1998 dated 15.07.1998, wherein, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.03.1998, declaring the action of the respondent-University herein treating the petitioner as non- teaching staff of the University and this court, by order dated 15.07.1998 directed the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent-authorities. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent- University and the respondent-University by Endorsement dated 08.10.1998 (Annexure-R3) has rejected the claim -9- NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 made by the petitioner for consideration of the case of the petitioner as a Teaching Faculty. Having gone through the averments made in the writ petition, nothing has been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition about filing of the said writ petition by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.8903 of 1998 seeking similar relief and the rejection of the same by Endorsement dated 08.10.1998 in the present writ petition. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record that, the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this court and approached the court with clean hands. Nowhere it is stated in the writ petition, about order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8903 of 1998, and the rejection of the claim made by the petitioner as per Endorsement dated 08.10.1998. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts, that too, claiming similar relief in this writ petition. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the present writ petition is filed only for pensionary benefits, however, leaving out the material facts rejection of the same as per Annexure-R3 amounts to
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19602 WP No. 9582 of 2019 suppression of the material facts, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for discretionary relief/equitable relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authorities within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bangalore for further action.
SD/-
JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39