Karnataka High Court
K.S.Sridhara vs Principal Secretary on 9 August, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 9 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO. 82746/2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.S .SRIDHARA
AGED 51 YEARS , OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. VIMS C/1 MEDICAL
COLLEGE QUARTERS CONTONMENT
VIJAYANAGAR, INS TITU TE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE BELLARY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCA TE.)
AND:
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL EDUCA TION)
VIDAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE
2. DIRECTORA TE OF MEDICAL EDUCA TION
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE
REP.BY D IRECTO R
3. VIJAYANAGAR INSTITU TE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE BELLARY. REP. BY DIRECTOR
VIJAYANAGAR INSTITU TE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE, BELLARY
2
4. DIRECTOR
VIJAYANAGAR INSTITU TE OF MEDICAL
SCIENCE BELLARY.
5. MRS. VASANTHA K.SANGOLLI
R/O: VIJAYANAGAR INS TITU TE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE, BELLARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. KUMAR, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCA TE,
FOR R.1 AND R.2;
SMT.SUNITA P. KA LASOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R.5;
R.3 AND R.4 - NO TICE SERVED.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITU TION OF INDIA PRAY ING TO :
I. QUASH ORDER DATED 29/07/2013 PASSED
BY 4 T H RESPONDENT, PRODUCED A T ANNEXU RE-A;
II. QUASH DECISION DATED 17/06/2009,
PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B;
III. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO
DESIGNATE THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN S TA TIS TICS IN VIJANAGAR
INS TITU TE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AT BELLARY WITH
EFFECT FROM 17/03/2000 AND TO GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEF ITS TO PETITIONER IN TERM S
OF A.I.C.T.E. SCA LE APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER AND
ALSO FURTHER ELIGIBLE PROMOTION TO THE POS T
OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND THEREAF TER TO THE
POST OF PROFESSOR WITH ALL O THER
CONSEQUENTIAL PAY SCALE IN TERMS OF A.I.C.T.E
NORMS APPLICABLE TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND
PROFESSORS, ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, TH E
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner has sought for the following relilefs before this Court.
i. To quash order d ated 29/07/2013 passed by 4 th respondent, produced at Annexure-A;
ii. To quash decision dated 17/06/2009, passed by 3 respondent, r d produced at Annexure-B;
iii. To direct the respondents 1 to 4 to designate the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in S tatistics in Vijanagar Institu te of Med ical Science at Bellary with eff ect f rom 17/03/2000 and to gr ant all consequential benef its to petitioner in terms of A.I.C.T.E. scale applicable to petitioner and also f urther eligible promotion to the post of Associate Prof essor and thereaf ter to the post of Prof essor with all other consequential pay scale in terms of A.I.C.T.E norms applicable to associate prof essor and professors.
4
3. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner worked as Lecturer in Statistics in the department of Community Medicine at Al-Ameen Medical College, Bijapur. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Lecturer in Statistics in the department of Community Medicine at Vijayanagar Institute of Medical Science (VIMS) against the sanctioned vacant post, vide order dated 18.1.1997. He joined duty on 17.3.1997, as per Annexure-E. In fact the petitioner was given the benefit of AICTE pay scale of Lecturer w.e.f. 1.6.1999 vide orders dated 22.9.1999. The petitioner has successfully completed the probationary period of two years and his post was made permanent. As on 17.3.2000 itself the petitioner became eligible for re-designation as Assistant Professor cum Statistician and was eligible for higher scale of pay attached to the Assistant Professor in Statistics. The board of governors of VIMS took a 5 decision not to designate the petitioner as Assistant Professor under subject No.4, vide orders dated 17.6.2009, which is under challenge before this Court, marked at Annexure-B. The petitioner submitted many number of representations as many as eight, since 2005, seeking retrospective promotion/re-designation as Assistant Professor cum Statistician and also for grant of all further consequential promotions and the financial benefits attached to those promotional posts. But in spite of his repeated requests and demands, the 3 r d respondent VIMS has not adhered to the procedure and law in re-designating the petitioner as Assistant Professor and also giving consequential subsequent promotions to him in this regard. On 15.2.2012 itself the petitioner has made his representation for retrospective re-designation as Assistant Professor cum Statistician as per Annexure-L. As the respondent No.3 has taken a 6 decision as per Annexure-B, subsequent promotion and re-designation has not been given to the petitioner.
4. At the time of addressing arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in the year 2015 particularly on 20.2.2015, the VIMS has given re-designation of the post of the petitioner as Assistant Professor cum Statistician.
5. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-L which is the official memorandum issued by the VIMS, the 3 r d respondent, dated 23.11.2007 giving retrospective promotion or re-designation to the other persons who are also standing on the same footing as that of the petitioner. But the institution has given a goby so far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned and committed serious 7 discrimination. Therefore he approached this Court for various reliefs.
6. Though in the writ petition the re-designation of 5th respondent is called in question, but after complete hearing of both the parties, it is made clear that the 5 t h respondent has not been re-designated as against the post of the petitioner herein.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also concedes to the extent that, the 5th respondent is re-designated as a Statistician cum Assistant Professor but not as Assistant Professor cum Statistician. The said re-designating as Statistician cum Assistant Professor is much below in the list, as per Annexure-K. Particularly at Annexure-K the department of Community Medicine has got the following staff pattern:
1) Prof essor -1.
2) Associate Prof essor -2.
8
3) Assistan t Prof essor -2.
4) Epidemiologist cum Assistant Prof essor-2.
5) S tatistician cum Assistan t Prof essor-1 The rest of the list is not necessary to be quoted here. Therefore in view of the above said factual aspects, the 5 t h respondent is re-designated as Statistician cum Assistant Professor. There is no need for this Court to deal with the nature of appointment and re-designation of 5 t h respondent herein.
8. Now the fact remains that in spite of eight representations given by the petitioner, the respondent has not taken into consideration the value of the work extracted from the petitioner and there is no reason assigned as to why his re-designation should not be considered from 17.3.2000. As per the Annexure-B, resolution passed at item No.4 dated 17.6.2009, there is no specific reason given as to why the petitioner is not entitled for re-designation from that date. 9
9. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the said endorsement or the decision taken by the 3 r d respondent dated 17.6.2009 vide resolution Annexure-B, deserves to be quashed. There is no reason as to why the respondent No.3 has considered the re-designation of the petitioner only in the year 2015. The 3 r d respondent though served, remained absent, and not given any explanation before the Court with regard to passing of such resolution as per Annexure-B.
10. Under the above said facts and circumstances it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.3 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for the purpose of re-designating him from 17.3.2000 and for consequential benefits and also for consequential promotion as and when became due to the petitioner. Under the above said circumstances this writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. 10
11. Hence the writ petition is partly allowed. The order cum resolution dated 17.6.2009 passed by the 3 r d respondent as per Annexure-B is hereby quashed. The petitioner is hereby directed to give one more representation giving all the details with regard to the retrospective re-designation as Assistant Professor cum Statistician and the subsequent promotional dates and consequential financial benefits, to the respondent No.1 to 4, requesting the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider his representation along with his earlier representation, along with a certified copy of this order, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. On receipt of such representation the respondents No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to consider the said representation in the light of the above said observation made by this Court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, 11 within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-