Dismissed

Mallappa Chalwadi v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2019WP/108110/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition challenging a 2012 appointment of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Professor. The court held the petition liable for dismissal due to delay and laches as the petitioner remained silent for years and failed to meet pre-qualification requirements regarding full-time service. The court also noted the seniority of the 2nd respondent over the petition

What did the court decide?

Petitioner petition stands rejected.

Mallappa Chalwadi Vs the Registrar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.108110/2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MALLAPPA CHALWADI, S/O. RUDRAPPA CHALWADI, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC:LECTURE, R/O. AT POST:SIDRAMPUR, TQ:SINDHANUR, DISTRICT:RAICHUR. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RADDI MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

A N D :

¶11

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD.

¶12

DR P K RATHOD, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC:ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/O. C/O. V V MANVI BUILDING, BURBUEE POLOTE, 6TH CROSS, GADAG. ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO, CONCERNING AND CONNECTED WITH THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED:29.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY VIDE ANNEXURE-"K" THE RESOLUTION NO.2 DATED:07.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY-SYNDICATE AND ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION BEARING Ref.NO.KU.BOA/2018-19/4775 DATED:24.07.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-S, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, PERUSE THE SAME AND DECLARE THEM ALL AS ILLEGAL

¶14

¶15

ARBITRARY AND A PRODUCT OF UNDUE FAVOUR CONFERRED ON THE 2ND RESPONDNET AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE RIGHT OF TEH PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT AND ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN KANNADA IN ITS SERVICE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BEARING NO.KU.BOA/ADVT/BL/2011/564 VIDE ANNEXURE-"A" DATED:25.07.2011 WITHOUT BROOKING ANY FURTHER DELAY IN THE MATTER AND MAKING AVAILABLE TO HIM ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THEREFROM AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2012 being the order of appointment issued by the 1^st respondent/University vide Annexure-K appointing the 2^nd respondent as Assistant Professor in Post Graduate Department of Studies in Kannada, Karnataka University, Dharwad, under the backlog vacancies. It is against the post vacated by one Dr. Rangaraj V.

¶20

The order of appointment came to be issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.07.2011. One

¶21

¶22

of the conditions prescribed under Annexure-A is that the candidate shall possess the required qualification of having rendered service in any College/University on a full-time basis and that alone would be considered as teaching experience and part time/temporary assignments (e.g.Guest faculty) are not considered for the purpose of computing the teaching experience. One other qualification prescribed is that he should possess Ph.D. qualification with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.

¶23

In the appraisal report, it is noted that the petitioner was working as a Lecturer on part time basis. As regards the 2^nd respondent, the Committee has noticed that he was working as Lecturer at JJ Comp PU College, Dambal, since 13.03.2003. It is seen that the petitioner has obtained his Ph.D. degree in the year 2009 whereas the 2^nd respondent has obtained his Ph.D. degree in October, 1996. Further, the writ petition itself stands vitiated on the ground of delay and laches.

¶24

¶25

The order of appointment is of the year 2012. The petitioner made his first attempt to question the same in the year 2018. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the 1^st respondent by order dated 01.03.2018 and that the representation to be considered within a stipulated period. The petitioner also preferred a contempt petition in C.C.No.100171/2018, which came to be dropped and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to call in question the endorsement dated 07.07.2018.

¶26

Be that as it may. It is seen that the petitioner is calling in question the appointment made about six years ago. From the material on record, it is apparent that the petitioner also does not possess certain prequalification stipulated by the University at the time of issuing the advertisement inviting applications. Even as per the Committee appraisal, he has only worked as part time lecturer. On the other hand, the second respondent is admittedly much senior to the petitioner

¶27

¶28

and has rendered 10 years service as lecturer. In that view of the matter, the contention that the selection of the second respondent is bad, merely because the petitioner has scored higher marks cannot be accepted.

¶29

As stated earlier, irrespective of the merits, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches alone. The second respondent has been rendering service in the said post for the past seven years. In that view of the matter, the petitioner who has remained silent and neglected to even assert his right is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court.

¶30

Hence the petition stands rejected.

¶31

(sd/-)

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

jm/-paragraphs 1 and 2 gab/from paragraph 3 till end

Mallappa Chalwadi v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallappa Chalwadi v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Ramakant S/O. Pandarinath Belamkar Vs Smt. Kamalavva W/O. Basaoppa Hulamani

Bapusaheba Balasaheba Inamdar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shekarapp Mallappa Herkal Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Venkappa Laxmappa Pilli Vs the Returning Officer

Sri.Someshwara Farmers Co-Operative Vs State of Karnataka

Hanamagouda Basanagouda Biradar Vs State of Karnataka