Karnataka High Court
Jaya Naik vs Karnataka Veterinary Animal on 22 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L NARAYANA SWAMY
WP No.16747 OF 2011 (S - RES)
BETWEEN
Jaya Naik
S/o Swamya Naik
Aged about 40 years
r/a Aralikoppa
Hiriyur Post, Bhadravathi
Taluk, Shimoga District. .. Petitioner
(By Sri Subramanya Bhat, Advocate)
AND
1. Karnataka Veterinary Animal
and Fisheries Science University
Nandi Nagar, PB No.6, Bidar.
2. Manja Naik
Assistant Professor
Department Fisheries
Micro Biology, College of
Fisheries, Mangalore. ..Respondents
(By Sri H N Shashidara, Advocate for R1,
Sri M P Kunju, Advocate for R2)
This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-A
corrigendum dated 7.12.2010 only insofar as it relates to
the selection and appointment of Associate Professor in
Fish Processing Technology (Canning) and etc.
2
This WP coming on for hearing this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in pursuance of the notification dated 7.12.2010 vide Annexure-A. The requisite qualification as per the notification is Ph.D in the concerned/allied subject with 5 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Extension. As on the date of this notification, he submitted the thesis for awarding Ph.D in his favour. Hence, for the purpose of Ph.D, the same should have been accepted as if he holds Ph.D qualification.
2. The 1st respondent/University has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification to the said post and required experience. The petitioner has challenged the selection of appointment of the 2nd respondent on the ground that he was not having requisite qualification with experience. Hence, the 3 petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent/University to consider his representation for considering his case to the post of Associate Professor in Fish Processing Technology (Canning) by relaxing the conditions.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted to dismiss the writ petition and support the order passed by the 1st respondent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, a writ petition filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution always must be relief oriented. In the instant case, as per the notification vide Annexure-A, one should possess Ph.D degree for filing an application for the post of Associate Professor. As on the date of notification dated 7.12.2010, it is not the case of the petitioner that he was awarded Ph.D degree and submission of the thesis was accepted by the Authority. 4 In this regard, it is relevant to mention that mere acceptance of thesis for awarding Ph.D is not sufficient to say that he satisfies the requirement for the post of Associate Professor. What is requisite qualification as on the date of notification is a person holding Ph.D degree. It is the case of the petitioner that mere submitting thesis, experience cannot be accepted. It is made clear that Ph.D degree awarded to the petitioner as per notification dated 7.12.2010 is after one year. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected.
6. Insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned, he possessed requisite qualification, but he did not satisfy five years experience. The 2nd respondent filed statement of objections to the writ petition and produced the copy of service certificate issued by the Under Secretary to the Department of Fisheries. It is stated that he was working as Assistant Director in the department of Fisheries. In this regard, it is to be held that what is required is teaching experience including Research/Extension and 5 whereas his working as Assistant Director cannot be taken as teaching experience.
7. It is to be held that the 2nd respondent was not having five years experience in teaching Research/Extension with reference to the Department of Fisheries, which cannot be accepted for the purpose of requisite qualification. The notification vide Annexure-A shows for filling up the backlog posts. Both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent belonged to Schedule Tribe. They applied for the post of Associate Professor. On the face of it, the petitioner should challenge the notification. When a person approached this Court without requisite qualification, it is not proper for him to challenge the appointment of respondent No.2. Be that as it may, the requisite qualification is Ph.D with 5 years experience or MFSC with 10 years of experience. The petitioner does not hold eligibility qualification with required experience. Hence, the 1st respondent/University rejected his application. The Selection Committee consisting of six experts selected the 2nd respondent. It is made clear that 6 the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the 2nd respondent. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.