Dr Mervin Herbert vs National Institute Of Technology ... on 20 August, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Mervin Herbert vs National Institute Of Technology ... on 20 August, 2013

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE


          ON THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013


                        BEFORE


       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH


       WRIT PETITION NO.34409 OF 2010 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

Dr.Mervin Herbert
S/o.C.F. Herbert,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at A1-23, NITK Campus,
P.O. Srinivasanagar,
Suratkal - 575 025                ...     PETITIONER

(By Sri.Reuban Jacob, Advocate
Shri.D.P. Mahesh, Advocate)


AND:

  1.     National Institute of Technology
         Karnataka (NITK),
         Suratkal - 575 025
         Represented by its Registrar

  2.     The Board of Governors
                               2




          National Institute of Technology
          Karnataka (NITK),
          Suratkal - 575 025
          Represented by its Chairman

  3.      Union of India
          Ministry of Human Resources Dept.
          Department of Secondary and
          Higher Education,
          New Delhi              ...    RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. P.S. Raja Gopal & Associates for R1
Sri.Jagadish Chandra, Advocate for R3
Sri.Kalyan Basavaraj, Adv. For R3
R2 served)
                          *****

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that
the method of 'standing advertisement' and the
procedure being resorted by the first respondent to
make selections to the post of professor, associate
professor and assistant professor as unconstitutional
and illegal and consequently, quash the standing
advertisement dated 22.09.2010 issued by the first
respondent vide Annexure-F to the writ petition.

      This Writ Petition coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-

                           ORDER

The petitioner seeks for the following relief: 3

"a) Declare that the method of 'Standing Advertisement' and the procedure being resorted by the first respondent to make selections to the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor as unconstitutional and illegal and consequently, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the standing advertisement No.Advt./Faculty/NITK/2010/B1, dated 22.09.2010, issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-F to the writ petition;

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1, to re-do the selection process strictly in accordance with the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 (Central Act 29 of 2007) and the Statutes framed thereunder. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to constitute the Board of Governors in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007."

2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that no recruitment has been taken place in pursuance to the said notification and further a fresh notification is likely to be issued for the same.

3. Under these circumstances, based on the submissions of both counsels, nothing further would survive for consideration in this petition. Consequently, the petition is disposed off as being infructutous.

4. All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE JJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court