Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramya H N vs The University Of Agricultural ... on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO.508 OF 2023(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMYA H.N.
W/O SANTHOSH M.P.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
BUILDING, IST FLOOR
'KRUTHIKA ARCADE'
HOLENARSIPURA ROAD
HASSAN - 573 201.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWAT, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
REGISTRAR OFFICE GKVK
BENGALURU - 560 065.
2. VICE CHANCELLOR/CHAIRMAN OF
SELECTION COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.
3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.
-2-
4. MRS. PRAKRUTHI N RAJGANGADKAR
W/O SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT No.102, 11TH CROSS
ZAINABHI MANSION
LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK
NEXT TO SBI BANK
CBI ROAD, GANGANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. L.V. APARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP
NO.9340/2013 DATED:18/04/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 18.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.9340/2013 (S-RES) by which learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petition quashed the order dated 28.09.2012 appointing the appellant herein to the post of Assistant Professor reserved for women (GM) in the Department of Agricultural Engineering and further directed the respondent No.1- University to recalculate the marks produced at Annexure-D in terms of notification dated 06.03.2012 which is produced at Annexure-B and the guidelines produced at Annexure-C within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
2. The above writ petition is filed by Mrs. Prakruthi N. Rajgangadkar- the respondent No.4 in this appeal contending inter alia that the respondent-University had issued a Notification dated 06.03.2012 seeking to fill up various posts in different departments including four posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering as per -4- notification at Annexure-B to the writ petition. That the respondent-University had issued guidelines and procedure dated 03.12.2007 for selection to the post of Professor/Teacher as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. That the respondent No.4/writ petitioner and the appellant/respondent No.4 had appeared for the interview and as per the score card produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition, respondent No.4/writ petitioner had scored 41.90 marks while appellant/respondent No.4 herein had scored 43.22 marks.
3. The contention of the respondent No.4/writ petitioner is that the assessment and recording of the score by the Selection Committee was improper and erroneous. The respondent No.4/writ petitioner had also made a representation to the respondent - University which was not considered, constraining her to file the above writ petition.
4. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and on going -5- through the records came to the conclusion that the committee had ignored relevant documents made available by the respondent No.4/writ petitioner and had accepted and acted upon the documents produced by the appellant/respondent No.4 which were contrary to the guidelines and has thus held that the awarding of marks by the respondent -University was untenable and did not pass the test of objectivity and consequently allowed the writ petition by issuing directions as noted hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/respondent No.4 is before this Court.
5. Sri. M.S.Bhagawat, learned Senior counsel representing the counsel for the appellant apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted that;
(a) assessment and awarding of marks has been done strictly in accordance to the guidelines provided therefor by the Selection Committee of the -6- respondent-University and the judicial intervention in the matter of this nature is restricted.
(b) the appellant/respondent No.4 has been found to be meritorious than the respondent No.4/writ petitioner by the Selection Committee and no grounds are made out by respondent No.4/writ petitioner warranting interference.
(c) Drawing attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph 14 at page 30 of the impugned order learned Senior counsel submitted that learned Single Judge erred at coming to the conclusion that the respondent No.4/writ petitioner was working as full time contract teacher at the college of Agricultural, VC Farm, Mandya and particularly under the University of Agricultural Sciences at Bangalore, on the basis of document produced at Annexure-N- page 158, inasmuch as said document is dated 16.04.2018, which is subsequent to the date of issuance of score card dated 02.07.2012. Thus, he submits the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge is -7- unsustainable as the said document was not made available by respondent No.4/writ petitioner before the Selection Committee and that the marks allotted to the appellant/respondent No.4 by the Selection Committee is based on the documents furnished by the parties. Therefore, he submits document brought subsequent to completion of the evaluation process cannot be made subject matter of writ petition.
(d) relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case TAJVIR SINGH SOLI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR disposed of on 28.03.2023, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant/respondent No.4 having submitted herself to the process of interview without any demur or protest cannot challenge on the basis of difference in the marks awarded by the Selection Committee and that the High Court in exercise of its power under judicial review cannot sit in judgment over the award of marks by Selection Committee. That merely because, respondent No.4/writ petitioner had made an application she would not get any vested right -8- to be selected. That a duly constituted Selection Committee is the expert body in the matter and the courts ordinarily shall not reverse the same as it does not have the expertise.
(e) as regards the experience prescribed for the post, learned Senior counsel submitted that the appellant/respondent No.4 has acquired all necessary qualification while respondent No.4/writ petitioner did not have necessary qualification as she had not passed through NET examination, which is an additional qualification. That the respondent No.4/writ petitioner not having challenged the notification or the selection process cannot seek relief as sought in the writ petition.
(f) the appellant/respondent No.4 had already served over 10 years as a Assistant Professor and has even been promoted to the next cadre and has also completed 30 years of age. In the said circumstances, questioning the appointment and quashing the same at this belated stage is impermissible, more particularly -9- when the appellant had no role in the process of selection.
Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Sri. I.Taranath Poojary, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that;
(a) the document produced at Annexure-N dated 16.04.2018 is only a certificate of past service rendered by respondent No.4/writ petitioner and that the same has to be read along with Annexures-F1 and F2 which are the certificates dated 18.11.2009 and 01.02.2011 pertaining to the relevant period.
(b) the Selection Committee not having taken into consideration these material documents has awarded lesser marks to the respondent No.4/writ petitioner; that the selection committee has taken into consideration of the documents furnished by the
- 10 -
appellant/respondent No.4 which do not meet the requirement of the guidelines and without taking these aspects of the matter the Selection Committee has awarded higher marks to the appellant/respondent No.4.
(c) that the requirement of passing NET has been exempted to the candidates who had done M.Tech (Agricultural Engineering) during the period prior to the year 2009 by the respondent -University in terms of a corrigendum dated 05.02.2010. Therefore, he submits that respondent No.4/writ petitioner has been discriminated in not considering her eligibility.
(d) that referring to a comparative Marks Chart produced along with synopsis dated 07.06.2013, learned Senior counsel submitted that had the selection committee taken into consideration the documents produced at Annexures-F1 and F4, the respondent No.4/writ petitioner would have been allotted 3.88 marks instead of 2.50 marks which would
- 11 -
have aggregated into 43.28 instead of 41.90 as allotted in the score card.
(e) that even without deducting any marks which have been allotted to appellant/respondent No.4 by the Selection Committee, that too, based on the material contrary to the guidelines, still the respondent No.4/writ petitioner would score higher than the appellant/respondent No.4. Thus, he submits the learned Single Judge having taken note of all these aspect of the matter has rightly come to the conclusion in allowing the writ petition and the appellant/respondent No.4 has made out no grounds warranting interference.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of notification by the respondent-University calling for applications to fill-up various posts including
- 12 -
posts of Assistant Professor. It is necessary to refer to qualification and score card for the direct recruitment as provided and guidelines for allotment of marks as per Annexure-C. Paragraph 4 of the said guidelines referring to experience in Teaching /Research /Extension for the purpose of allotment of marks is relevant, which reads as under;
4. Experience in Maximum marks Teaching/Research/ Extension: allotted=15 Experience in the cadre of i) 0.125 marks for each Instructor/Research month of service in Assistant/Extension Guide/Technical teaching/ research/ Assistant/Scientific Assistant /Farm extension Manager/ temporary appointment as Note: To be supported Research Associate/Extension by authorized document worker/Full time SRF/Project issued by the competent Scientist/Specialist in an authorities.
University/College/ Government Departments/ research
Organization/Boards/Corporations/ ICAR Institute/Similar Institutes like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, ICRISAT etc., /Krishi Vignana Kendras/Statutory bodies /International organizations/ Nationalized Banks/ Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working on Government projects
9. Thus, reading of the above portion of guidelines makes it clear that the maximum marks to be allotted under the heading "Experience" to a candidate is 15, that is 0.125 marks for each month of service in Teaching/Research/Extension.
- 13 -
10. In the score card produced at Annexure-D, respondent No.4/writ petitioner has been awarded 2.50 marks, while, the appellant /respondent No.4 has been allotted 6.25 marks under the column experience in Teaching/Research/Extension. In the statement of objections filed by the University at paragraph 8 details of the calculation made by the Committee are provided, wherein the Selection committee has taken total of 20 months of working experience of respondent No.4/writ petitioner and has allotted 2.50 marks. As rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4/writ petitioner if documents at Annexures-F1 and F4 were taken into consideration in proper perspective a total number of months of experience would have been 31 months instead of 20 months, thereby the total marks to be allotted would have been 3.88 marks. This would have taken the tally of marks of the respondent No.4/writ petitioner to a total of marks 43.28 instead of 41.90. The appellant /respondent No.4 has been allotted aggregate of 43.22 marks which is still lesser than the marks which the
- 14 -
respondent No.4/writ petitioner was entitled to. It is also seen that the Selection committee has allotted 0.50 marks to the appellant/respondent No.4 under the heading "Additional Qualification as Post -Doctoral experience" to which there is no plausible explanation.
11. Though it is contended by respondent No.4/writ petitioner that the appellant/respondent No.4 did not possess required qualification as per guidelines
-para 4 extracted hereinabove, inasmuch as the documents produced by her to show her experience refers to she working as a Store Manager in Namdhari Agro Fresh Pvt. Ltd., Langford Town, Agro Fresh Branch, and even if one ignores allotment of marks under the said heading as noted above, the respondent No.4/writ petitioner is still ahead of appellant/ respondent No.4.
12. As regards the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, respondent No.4/writ petitioner did not possess required qualification of getting through NET, it is necessary to refer to the
- 15 -
notification produced at Annexure-B, wherein at page 64 following is mentioned;
"2. Candidates should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the concerned subject for Assistant Professor Post conducted by ASRB/ UGC/CSIR or a similar test accredited by ICAR/ICMR/NCERT/UGC/CSIR i.e.,
(a) For agriculture/ animal husbandry/veterinary /Fisheries disciplines , ASRB/ ICAR/NET in the concerned subject is prescribed.
(b) For Humanities, languages etc., UGC NET is prescribed
(c) For pure science CSIR/ NET is prescribed.
Note:
1. In exceptional cases where ASRB (ICAR) is not conducting the NET in certain disciplines, the candidates should pass NET in the disciplines approved by the academic council in the related subjects: as per notification No. AO/RT/Quali.Asst. Prof./Direct Rectt./2008-09 dated 18.11.2008 and notification No.AO/RT/Quali.Asst. Prof./Direct Rectt./2008- 09 dated:03.11.2008 and as approved by the Board of Management in its 337th II Adjourned Emergent Meeting held on 06.08.2010 and confirmed in Minutes dated:25.11.2010 Corrigendum No.AO/PS/AC -167/21/Item-
9/Congndm/2010 dated:05.02.2010 available on UAS-B Website:www.uasbangalore.edu.in
2. ...........
13. Corrigendum referred to in the aforesaid note is at Annexure-L, page 153 of the appeal memo, wherein at page 154, Sl.No.5, in the remarks column it is stated that "NET is exempted for candidates who have done M.Sc (Ag) Engg./M.Tech(Ag.Engg.) during
- 16 -
or prior to 2009 as the revised syllabus as per 4th Dean's committee has been introduced in 2007". Annexure-M at page 157 is a document produced with regard to admission of respondent No.4/writ petitioner to the degree of Master of Technology (Agricultural Engineering) on 20.06.2009.
14. Thus, referring to the above material, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4/writ petitioner submitted that requirement of NET is exempted as far as respondent No.4/writ petitioner is concerned, as she had completed her Degree in Master of Technology in Agricultural Engineering during or prior to 2009.
15. Learned Single Judge having taken note of the aforesaid aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that the Selection committee erred in awarding the marks without taking these aspects of the matter and accordingly allowed the writ petition.
16. We are of the considered view that the reasoning and finding of the learned Single Judge is
- 17 -
based on the material documents produced by the parties. As rightly concluded by learned Single Judge, Selection committee constituted by the respondent- University, has committed error in not taking into consideration the documents produced by respondent No.4/writ petitioner in support of her claim regarding experience as provided under guideline No.4.
17. As regards the contention of prejudice that would be caused to the appellant/respondent No.4 in the event of confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, it is necessary to note that the writ petition was filed in the year 2013. While admitting the writ petition on 20.07.2013, this Court had passed order that "all further proceedings of the respondents will be subject to further orders and disposal of this petition". Thus, the appellant/respondent No.4 is well aware of her appointment being subject to outcome of the writ proceedings. The appellant/respondent No.4 cannot be heard to say to the contrary.
- 18 -
18. In our considered opinion, there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and no grounds are made out by the appellant/respondent No.4 warranting interference. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RU