Karnataka High Court
Rohini B Jyoti W/O Mallikarjun Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.106338-340 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
1. ROHINI B. JYOTI
W/O MALLIKARJUN PATIL,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS
ENGINEERING DEPT.,
R/O: 56, ASHIRWAD,
SHIRUR PARK, HUBBALLI-580031.
2. CHANDRAKANT S/O NARAYAN SHET,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPT.,
R/O: PLOT NO.31,
SHIRAGUPPI BUILDING,
PRASHANT COLONY,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031.
3. SHAFEEQUE AHMED
S/O. ABDUL REHMAN HULLUR,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT.,
R/O: PLOT NO.28, BHARATI COLONY,
BEHIND SIDDESHWAR PARK,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580031.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(HIGHER EDUCATION),
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECITOR,
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
3. A.I.C.T.E.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY,
NELSON MANDELA MAARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI.
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
K.L.E. TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
(FORMERLY B.V. BHOOMAREDDY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING),
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ANOOP G DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 THROUGH
NOTIFICATION DATED:04.01.2016 AT SL.NO.53 PUBLISHED IN THE
GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY (PART 3- SEC. 4)
DATED:06.01.2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY;
DECLARE THAT THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
THROUGH CIRCULAR BEARING NO.DTE 47 EST 4 (A) 2014/5326,
DATED:28.01.2017, VICE ANNEXURE-K AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY;
QUASH THE ORDERS ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 BEARING
NO.REF:BVB/EST/RBJ/2014-15/566 DATED:04.09.2014, REF:BVB/
EST/RBJ/CNS/2014-15/564 DATED:04.09.2014 AND REF:BVB/EST/
SAH/2014-15/565 DATED 04.09.2014, VIDE ANNEXURES-D, D1 AND
D2 ; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY AND
INCREMENTS FROM 04.09.2014 WITH APPROPRIATE INTEREST TILL
REALISATION.
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners were appointed as lecturers on 12.09.1983, 19.11.1983 and 18.021985, respectively, and thereafter promoted as lecturers in selection grade. On 09.01.2006 petitioners were promoted as Assistant Professors w.e.f. 28.03.2005 subject to petitioners completing Ph.D., within seven years from the date of their promotion. The government by order dated 07.03.2011 re-designated the petitioners as Associate Professors w.e.f., 01.01.2006. However, the condition that the Petitioners were required acquire the qualification of Ph.D., within seven years was not prescribed.
2. Respondent No.4 passed an order dated 04.09.2014 for withholding increments of the petitioners on the ground that they have not completed Ph.D. course within seven years from the date of their promotion as Assistant Professors. The government sought clarification from AICTE as to whether Assistant Professor re-designated as Associate Professor w.e.f., 01.01.2006, who have not completed degree in seven years 4 from the date of joining should be reverted back or not. The AICTE in turn clarified that they are required to complete Ph.D., within seven years from the date of joining, failing which increments shall be stopped until Ph.D., is acquired. Accordingly, the government passed an order dated 28.01.2017 withholding increments of the petitioners till the petitioners complete their Ph.D. Being aggrieved, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the petitioners were re-designated as Associate Professors without there being any requirement to complete Ph.D. Hence, the impugned order passed by the government is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the government cannot withhold all increments to which the petitioners are entitled to and withholding of increments is selective and discriminatory. He further submits that in the absence of any condition with regard to consequences for not completing Ph.D., at the time of promotion, the government cannot withhold the increments to which the petitioners are entitled to w.e.f., 28.01.2017 till they attain the age of superannuation.
5
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for AICTE would submit that for the promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the candidate is required to complete Ph.D., within seven years from the date of promotion, however the petitioners have not completed Ph.D., within seven years from the date of promotion and as such, the Government has rightly withheld the increments w.e.f., 28.01.2017 in terms of clarification issued by the AICTE.
5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent/State would reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent-AICTE.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Professors on 9/01/2006 on the condition that they should complete Ph.D course within seven years. On 7/3/2011, the petitioners were re-designated as Associate Professors with effect from 01/01/2006. However, Regulations of AICTE specifies that the candidate should possess qualification of Ph.D so as to 6 be eligible for appointment for the posts of Associate Professors. However, in the present case, the petitioners do not complete Ph.D even though they were granted seven years to complete Ph.D course. Hence, AICTE issued direction to withhold increment of persons who are appointed as Associate Professors and do not possesses qualification of Ph.D. Therefore, I am of the view that the Government order 28.01.2017 is in conformity with the Regulations of AICTE which mandates that to be eligible for appointment to the posts of Associate Professors, the candidate should complete Ph.D. course within seven years from re-designation as Associate Professors. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions stand dismissed .
ii) In view of the order dated 28.01.2017 and the clarification dated 4/1/2016 issued by AICTE, the question of recovery of money from the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 4/9/2014 passed by the 4th respondent does not arise. 7
To aforesaid extent the impugned order stands modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vb/-