Karnataka High Court
Dr Swarnamala Sirsi vs The University Of Mysore on 24 September, 2019
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.9754/2008 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR.SWARNAMALA SIRSI
W/O DR.SOMASHEKAR
AGED 50 YEARS,
SENIOR SCALE LECTURER,
IN DEPT. OF PHYSICS,
YUVARAJA'S COLLEGE,
MYSORE - 570 005. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.HEMALATHA MAHISHI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
MYSORE.
2. THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHANCELLOR,
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
MYSORE.
3. DR A.P.GNANA PRAKASH
READER, DEPT. OF STUDIES,
IN PHYSICS,
MANASAGANGOTRI,
MYSORE - 570 006.
2
4. THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 1. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.VINAYAKA B, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI.E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE R3, AS READER IN
PHYSICS, DOS PHYSICS, MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSORE BY
QUASHING THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DT.12.7.07, VIDE
ANN-E, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 05.10.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to challenge the Selection and Appointment of 3rd Respondent as Reader in Physics, D.O.S Physics, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore and to quash the order dated 12.07.2007 and for such other relief/s.
2. The facts of the case are that, in response to the Notification dated 19.04.2007 calling for application for the post 3 of Reader in Physics in the Post Graduate Department of Physics at Manasa Gangothri, Mysore, the Petitioner applied in Category
- GM(W). The Petitioner appeared for the Interview. The 3rd Respondent came to be selected by the 2nd Respondent to the post of Reader in Post Graduate Department of Physics. By its order dated 12.07.2007, the 1st Respondent appointed the 3rd Respondent to the said Post on Probation for a period of two (2) years.
3. The Petitioner was under the impression that, Respondents No.1 and 2 had acted fairly and impartially, in appointing the 3rd Respondent. By October, 2007 there was News Paper Publication saying malpractice and unfair methods in selection and appointment of Teaching Staff in different Departments of Mysore University. She further learnt that, in the Syndicate Meeting, the Members expressed anguish about the irregularities and malpractices committed by the 1st and 2nd Respondent in the appointment of Teaching Staff of Post Graduate Departments of the University and resolved to send information to the Government. The Petitioner waited for 4 sufficient time awaiting Government's final decision in the matter. However, the Government did not take final decision and therefore, the Petitioner arranged to file the present Writ Petition.
4. It is stated by the Petitioner that, the very constitution of the Board of Appointment was defective for the reason that, Professor K.Siddappa was the guide of the 3rd Respondent for his Ph.d., in Mangalore University and almost all papers published by the 3rd Respondent are co-authored by Professor K.Siddappa. He had clear bias in favour of 3rd Respondent and has tilted the Scale in his favour during interview and in his Selection to the post of Reader in Physics. Therefore, he could not have sat as a Member in BOA. Similar is the case of Professor Lagare. On the date of interview, he had retired from Gulbarga University. Both of them were no longer serving Professors in their respective Universities. Still, they sat in the BOA and selected the 3rd Respondent. In the appointments to all the posts of Lecturer, Reader and Professor there is an obvious attempt to favour a particular community. 5 The Reservation norms are floated. Although, eligible Women Candidate including the Petitioner were available no specific selection of Women for two posts was made by the BOA. Second Post for Women in General Merit Category was not filled, although the Petitioner was qualified and eligible. Total posts notified for Readers were 10. Out of them, 9 were filled up filling one vacancy by selecting 2A category applicant, one post by selection of SC Candidate and 7 were shown to be given to General Merit Candidates violating Reservation norms, although, eligible candidates were available in respective categories.
5. Regarding evaluation, the 3rd Respondent has been given 5 points for his teaching experience, although, he did not have any such experience and had not given any document in support thereof. He was only a temporary lecturer in two Engineering Colleges and worked only as Post Doctoral Fellow in Taiwan and USA. Since he did not have regular full time teaching experience, he was not eligible to get even one mark. The BOA has arbitrarily given 13 marks, although, he did not have even a Single Paper authorized by himself. Interview was 6 only a farce, as the Petitioner was asked only single question and before she started answering the same, she was concluded with interview. On the basis of such farce interview the petitioner has been given 6 marks, whereas the 3rd respondent has been arbitrarily given 12 marks.
6. The respondent No.1 filed statement of objections inter alia contending that third respondent is selected in accordance with the existing Rules, statutes, orders issued from time to time by the Government as well as the UGC and there is no violation whatsoever. The petitioner possesses a masters degree with only 51.20% with Ph.D and passed NET and has 6 years of PG and 7 years and 10 months of undergraduate teaching experience, whereas 3rd respondent possesses M.Sc., Degree with 66.9% and an M. Phil with 72.80% and Ph.D degree and has 2 years of P.G and 4 years U G teaching experience. That apart the respondent was awarded a post Doctoral Fellowship from USA and Thaiwan. The minimum percentage of marks prescribed is 55% whereas the petitioner has only 51.20%.
7
7. The third respondent has also filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has filed the writ petition on the basis of paper statements, etc. It is an assumption of the petitioner that there was malpractice in the selection process. The third respondent fulfills all the eligibility criteria for the post of Reader and he was selected on the basis of merit. The candidates from outside the University, in addition, shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade of `B' in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Masters Degree level. Besides the above qualification, the candidate should possess 5 years teaching and/or research and should have made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new course, curricula, etc., The third respondent had more than 5 years of teaching and or research experience when he applied for the same. Thus he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the writ papers.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent did not fulfill the primary eligibility of having regular full time teaching experience not even for a year. The constitution of BOA with Prof. K Siddappa and Prof. Lagare who were not serving Professors was not proper. Prof. K Siddappa was guide for the third respondent and was shown as co-author in many of his papers. Therefore, the entire proceedings of selection and appointment of third respondent was vitiated.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum percentage of 55 marks in Masters Degree having secured only 51.20% whereas the third respondent had 66.9% in M.Sc, Degree, M.Phil with 72.80% and Ph.D degree and has 2 years of P.G and 4 years of U.G teaching experience. Therefore, 9 selection and appointment of third respondent was sought to be justified.
11. So far as minimum percentage of marks in Masters Degree, considering the fact that relaxation is admissible to Ph.D holders who had passed the Masters Degree prior to 1991and to JRF candidates who cleared JRF prior to 1989, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum percentage of marks in Masters Degree. The third respondent has two Masters Degree in M.Sc., with 67% and M.Phil. with 73%. He has completed Ph.D in Microtron Accelerator Centre, Department of Physics, Mangalore University. He was invitedto National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan to carry out research and he worked as Post Doctoral Research Fellow (PDF) from February 2003 to July 2004. The third respondent moved to the world famous Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA towork with world renowned Prof. John D Cressler at School of Electronics and Computer Engineering asPDF. He did research work for his M.Phil. degree during 1995-96 and he published his work in International Journal. He worked as Junior Research Fellow (JRF) 10 and Senior Research Fellow (SRF) under Research Project sanctioned by Board of Research in Nuclear Science (BRNS) during 1997 - 2002. Thus Board of Appointment found third respondent to be more meritorious than the petitioner and selected.
12. Considering the limited jurisdiction the courts have in these types of matters, I am of the view that this is not a matter where this court could interfere. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd