Karnataka High Court
Dr Narendra Kumar G vs State Of Karnataka on 10 November, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.46445/2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Dr. Narendra Kumar G,
S/o Shri K. Guru Murthy,
Aged 56 years,
Professor,
Department of Electronics and
Computer Science Engineering,
University of Visveswaraiah College
of Engineering, K.R. Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Vijaya Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Collegiate Education,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Registrar,
Bangalore University,
Gnana Bharathi,
Bangalore - 560 056.
3. Dr. Venugopal K.R,
Aged major,
Working as Professor,
Department of Electronics and
2
Computer Science Engineering,
University of Visveswaraiah College
Of Engineering, K.R. Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Principal,
University of Vishveshwariah College
Of Engineering, K.R. Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R-1)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to issue
of the impugned resolution of the Syndicate dated 13.12.2001
and the impugned dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure-G and H) and after
perusal set aside the same in so far as it relates to promotion of
the R-3 to the post of Professor in the Department of Computer
Engineering and Science.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the promotion of the respondent No.3 on 2.1.2002, to the post of Professor, Department of Electronics and Computer Science, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20.7.1990, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the University of Visveswaraiah College of Engineering. Subsequently, on 6.10.1993, he was promoted as Lecturer Senior Scale. Since the petitioner has not produced any details with regard to the 3 respondent No.3 entering the service of the University, it is not possible to narrate the facts with regard to the entry of the respondent No.3 in the service of the College. According to the petitioner, on 19.1.2001, a Committee, constituted for promotion of the under-graduate teachers of the Department of Electronics and Computer Science Engineering, University of Visveswaraiah College of Engineering, proceeded to recommend the name of the respondent No.3 for promotion to the post of Professor in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science Engineering. The said recommendation was approved by the Syndicate on 13.12.2001. Therefore, on 2.1.2002, the respondent No.3 was appointed to the post of Professor.
3. The seniority list was issued by the respondent University on 13.11.2007, wherein the respondent No.3 was shown as senior most in the cadre of Professor. Since on 13.11.2007, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Professor, his name was not included in the said seniority list. Furthermore, according to the petitioner, by order dated 9.8.2008, he was promoted to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme. However, his promotion was given retrospectively from 20.6.2006.
4
4. According to the petitioner, on 6.6.2016, the respondent No.2 has published a Provisional Seniority List of the Professor in the respondent - College. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the Provisional Seniority List, he has filed his objections. However, as his objections has not been considered, and the said Final Seniority List has not been published, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.34623/2017. The said writ petition is still pending before this Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the promotion of the respondent No.3 on 2.1.2002.
5. A bare perusal of the facts narrated above, clearly reveals that the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches. For, the petitioner is challenging a promotion made fifteen years ago, i.e. promotion made on 2.1.2002 by filing a writ petition on 9.10.2017. Therefore, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the delay and laches in challenging the said promotion.
6. Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the 5 promotion of the respondent No.3 till the Provisional Seniority List was published on 6.6.2016. Therefore, the cause of action arose on 6.6.2016. Hence, the writ petition is not hit by delay and laches.
7. The explanation being given by the learned counsel is highly misplaced. Since the petitioner was working in the same College, and in the same Department, the petitioner was well aware that the respondent No.3 had been promoted to the post of Professor as far back as 2002. The Final Seniority List was issued on 13.11.2007. Even the said Seniority List must have been in the knowledge of the petitioner. Despite the fact that the respondent No.3 was shown as the senior most in the said Seniority List, the petitioner did not raise his voice for the alleged illegal promotion of the respondent No.3 either in 2002 or even in 2007. Surprisingly, even after the petitioner was promoted retrospectively, with effect from 20.6.2006, the petitioner maintained a studied silence with regard to the issue of Seniority List. Even in 2008, when the petitioner was retrospectively promoted, he did not question the promotion of the respondent No.3, knowing fully well that in case the 6 promotion is not questioned in 2008, whenever the seniority list is provisionally made, and finally drawn, the respondent No.3 would be shown as senior, as he entered the post of Professor in 2002. Therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner was promoted in the same post as Professor in 2006, he did not question the promotion of the respondent No.3 made in 2002. From 2008 till 2017, the petitioner maintained a complete silence over the entire issue.
8. In the case of Mohd. Siddiq Ali v. High Court of A.P. and others [(2005) 13 SCC 207], the appellant had challenged the selection to the post of District Munsiff made in April 1998 by filing a writ petition in November 1998. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition as highly belated. For, by November 1998, the selected persons had already joined the service. In the present case, the respondent No.3 has already discharged the duties as Professor for the last fifteen years. Therefore, even the present case is highly belated.
9. Similarly, in the case of Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Krishan Kumar Vij and another [(2010) 8 SCC 7 701], the respondent No.1, Mr. Krishan Kumar Vij, had approached the Court after a delay of eight years for seeking time-bound promotional scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the petition filed by the respondent No.1 deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Likewise, in the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of fifteen years. Hence, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
10. Once the Provisional Seniority List was published on 6.6.2016, the petitioner filed his objection on 28.7.2016. Since his objections were not acted upon, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, as mentioned above. Since the said writ petition is pending, obviously its outcome is unknown. But surreptitiously the petitioner has challenged the promotion of the respondent No.3, after an inordinate delay of fifteen years. Therefore, the present writ petition is not only hit by ulterior motive, but is also a subterfuge to upset the applecart after inordinate delay of fifteen years. Hence, the present writ petition is hit by delay and laches. Therefore, this Court does not find 8 any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD