Dismissed

N Jayaramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021WP/39267/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five university engineering teachers sought promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme counting service rendered in earlier affiliated colleges, with retrospective dates from eligibility. Following the Supreme Court's decision that earlier service counts for eligibility but the effective date is the date of entry into university service, and noting three petitioners were already promoted, the c

What the court decided

AI extract

N Jayaramappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.39267/2016 (S- PRO)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

N.JAYARAMAPPA S/O NEELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE UNIVERSTIY, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶9

SRI KIRAN T., S/O MR. M. THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE UNIVERSTIY, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶10

DR. A.V. SRIRAM S/O DR. A. VENKATARAMAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,

¶11

¶12

JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE UNIVERSTIY, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶13

DR. B. VISWANATH S/O T. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE UNIVERSTIY, BENGALURU – 560 056. ALSO AT #1250, 25 ‘A’ MAIN, 9^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 069.

¶14

DR. NAGARAJA P.S., S/O CHICK SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, JNANABHARATHI, BANGALORE UNIVERSTIY, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR M/S BAJENTRI ASSOCIATES (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶17

AND

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, SACHIVALAYA-II, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

¶20

THE REGISTRAR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, JANABHARATHI CAMPUS, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶21

THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE OF WELFARE OF SCHEDULE CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBES, KARNATAKA LEGISLATURE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

THE PRINCIPAL UNIVERSITY VISVESVARAYA COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU – 560 056.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI M.SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING ); SRI C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 SERVED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS OF R-1 DATED 28.05.2016 VIDE ANNEX-V AND THE INSTRUCTIONS OF R-3 DATED 06.05.2016 VIDE ANNEX-U AND AFTER PERUSE SET ASIDE THE SAME; DIRECT R-2 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS FOR PROMOTIONS AS PROFESSORS UNDER CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME OF UGC / AICTE BY COUNTING THE PAST SERVICES RENDERED AND TO GRANT PROMOTION AS PROFESSORS RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO UNDER THE CIS AND TO GRANT OF CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THERETO.

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners in this writ petition have sought the following prayer:-

¶30

“1. To call for records relating to issue of the impugned directions of the 1^st respondent bearing No.ED 386 UBV 2015 dated 28-05-2016 vide Annexure-V and the instructions of the 3^rd respondent bearing No.AaJaAsPa/Eithara/112/2016 dated 06-05-2016 vide Annexure-U and after peruse set aside the same.

¶31

2. To call for records relating to issue of impugned order bearing No.EST.II/E6/AICTE-CAS-PROF/2019 dated 25-01-2019 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-AE and after perusal set aside the same, in so far as it relates to denial of counting of past service rendered by them in the colleges

¶32

¶33

prior to their appointment in the 2^nd respondent University, for the purpose of granting promotion to the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme in terms of UGC/AICTE Guidelines and statue of 2^nd respondent University, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

3. To issue direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the Petitioners for promotions as Professors under Career Advancement Scheme of UGC/AICTE by counting the past services rendered and to grant promotion as Professors retrospectively from the date of they would be entitled to under the CAS and to grant consequential benefits thereof.

¶35

4. To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶36

¶37

Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the petitioners, Sri M. Sandesh Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for first respondent, Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶39

Brief facts leading to the seeking of aforesaid

¶40

prayers by the petitioners are as follows:-

¶41

3(i). The 1^st petitioner joins as a Lecturer in

¶42

Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology on 01-08-1991, on consolidated pay basis. At the time of joining Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology, he had the qualification of B.E. in Civil Engineering and later, acquired post-graduation in Structural Engineering. It is the claim of the 1^st petitioner that he was appointed on regular basis in Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology with effect from 03-11-1994 and was further promoted

¶43

¶44

as Senior Lecturer on 30-12-2002. Having worked at Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology, the 1^st petitioner later joined as a Lecture in B.M.S. Evening College with effect from 25-03-2003.

¶45

3(ii) The 2^nd petitioner joined the services of

¶46

Sri Jagadguru Chandrashekaranatha Swamiji Institute of Technology, Chickballapur on 08-12-1998, with the qualification of B.E. in Civil Engineering and acquired a post-graduate degree in Structural Engineering later.

¶47

3(iii) The 3^rd petitioner was appointed as a

¶48

Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering in the Bangalore Institute of Technology on 30-10-1991 and was further promoted as Lecturer Senior Scale on 2804-1998. It appears that the 3^rd petitioner later pursuant to a notification issued by the 2^nd respondent/Bangalore University (‘the University’ for short) applied and was appointed as a Lecturer in the

¶49

¶50

Department of Civil Engineering of the University with effect from 29-05-1998.

¶51

3 (iv) The 4^th petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Siddaganga Institute of Technology,

¶52

Tumkuru on 15-04-1988 and was further promoted as Lecturer Senior Scale on 15-04-1996. The 4^th petitioner also entered the 2^nd respondent/University in the Department of Civil Engineering on 29-05-1998, pursuant to direct recruitment process initiated by the 2^nd respondent/ University.

¶53

qualification of B.E. in Civil Engineering and postgraduation in Civil Engineering and was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Sri Jagadguru Chandrashekaranatha Swamiji Institute of Technology, Chikkaballapura, on 24-12-1988. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Professor on 01-04-1997. Pursuant to the notification issued on 25-08-1997, by

¶54

¶55

the 2^nd respondent / University, he applied, was

¶56

selected and joined the service as Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering on 29-05-1998.

¶57

Thus, all the petitioners had initially entered service in the respective Institutions, some affiliated to the University and some not and petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 entered the service of the University in the Department of Civil Engineering pursuant to a direct recruitment process, on respective dates narrated hereinabove.

¶58

5. The University Grants Commission (‘the

¶59

Commission’ for short) clarified that the past service rendered by Lecturers in Colleges affiliated to the Commission may be considered for placement in Senior Scale/Selection Grade subject to, conditions specified therein. The claim of the petitioners is that, they were all working in various private aided Engineering Colleges, which were affiliated either to AICTE or the

¶60

¶61

Commission and later, were appointed in the 4^th respondent/University Visvesvaraya College of

¶62

Engineering (‘the College’ for short). Insofar as it concerns 1^st and 2^nd petitioners, a notification was issued by the University on 01-07-2006, pursuant to which, they applied and were appointed in the 4^th respondent/College on 14-10-2006. Thus, the entry of service of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, into the service of the University is 14.10.2006 and in respect of petitioner Nos.3 to 5, the date of appointment is 29-05-1998. All the petitioners gave representations to count their past service and protect the last pay drawn in the Institutions that they were working prior to their entry into the service of the University. The claim of the petitioners is in terms of the clarification issued by the Commission on 27-11-1990, which reads as follows:-

¶63

“1. Previous service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent in a University, college, national laboratory or other scientific organizations (CSIR, ICAR,

¶64

¶65

DRDO, UGC etc.) and as a UGC Research Scientist should be counted for placement of Lecturers in Senior Scale/Selection Grade provided that:-

¶66

(a) the post was in an equivalent grade/state of pay as the post of a Lecturer:

¶67

(b) the qualifications for the post were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by UGC for the post of Lecturer;

¶68

(c) the Lecturers concerned possessed the minimum qualification prescribed by UGC for appointment as Lecturers;

¶69

(d) the post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down by the University/State Government;

¶70

(e) the appointment was not ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration.”

¶71

In terms of the said clarification of the Commission,

¶72

previous service without any break as a Lecturer or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratory or other Scientific Organizations was to be taken into

¶73

¶74

consideration for placement in Senior Scale/ Selection Grade. The only rider was that, the appointment was not to be ad hoc . On the strength of the aforesaid clarification, the petitioners now claim that the service that they have rendered in the previous Institutions should be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of consideration of their cases for promotion.

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶76

contend that the matter stands covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.100436 of 2019 decided on 02.01.2020, in the case of REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY V. DR. PRABHUGOWDA AND OTHERS, and would submit that this Court had interpreted the UGC Regulations and also the statutes of the Karnataka University which are in pari materia with the status of the University.

¶77

The learned counsel appearing for the University, which has filed elaborate statement of

¶78

¶79

objections takes this Court through the University Statutes to contend that past service of the petitioners prior to the petitioners coming into the service of the University cannot be taken into consideration, in the light of the Statutes and the judgment of the Apex Court, which upturned the judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are estopped from pursuing this writ petition any further, as during the pendency of the writ petition pursuant to their selection by the Selection Committee, the petitioners who have all participated, got promotions to the post of Professor and are working in the cadre of Professor.

¶80

Therefore, the issue that now falls for

¶81

consideration is, whether the past service rendered by the petitioners can be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion under the Career Advancement

¶82

¶83

Scheme from time to time to the cadres of Associate

¶84

Professor and Professor in the University?

¶85

Career Advancement Scheme (‘CAS’ for short) in the University is governed under the statutes of the University. Statute No.7 which deals with revised pay scales, service conditions and CAS for teachers, are the ones that are to be considered in the case at hand. The University by its notification dated 09-11-2016, notified amended statutes relating to CAS. The present statute operating insofar as it concerned promotion under CAS, reads as follows:-

¶86

“7.	REVISED PAY CONDITIONS ADVANCEMENT TEACHERS.	SCALE, AND SCHEME	SERVICE CAREER (CAS) FOR

¶87

(a) Assistant Professor / Associate Professor / Professors:

¶88

(xiii) Associate Professor completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs.9000/and possessing a Ph.D. degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be

¶89

¶90

appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the AICTE from time to time. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D. shall be promoted, appointed, or designated as Professor. The Pay Band for the post of Professors shall be R.37,400-67000 with AGP of 10,000/-.”

¶91

Insofar as it concerns the past service for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS, which is dealt with in terms of Statute No.15 reads as follows:

¶92

“15. COUNTING OF PAST SERVICES FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION UNDER CAS:

¶93

Previous regular service, whether national or international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organizations such as the CISR, ICAR, DRDO, IGCAR, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DOT, etc. should be counted for recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix-I-Table No.II provided that:

¶94

a) The essential qualification of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as

¶95

¶96

b)	the The revi (Lec	case may be. post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre- sed scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor turer), Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor.
c)	The pro	candidate for direct recruitment has applied through per channel only.
d)	The and qua to t Prof	concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor Professor should possess the same minimum lifications as prescribed by the AICTE for appointment he post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and essor as the case may be
e)	The sele Uni con	post was filled in accordance with the prescribed ction procedure as laid down in the Regulations of versity/State Government/Central Government/ cerned Institutions, for such appointments.
f)	The any tha mor	previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for duration, or an ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less n one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of e than one year duration can be counted provide that:
	i)	the period of service was of more than one year duration.
	ii)	the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee
	iii)	the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service; and
	iv)	Artificial break in service shall not be used to the prejudice of employee, appointed on permanent basis. The person appointed on permanent basis shall be given the benefit of entire service rendered by him with effect from the date of initial appointment (temporary/contract/ad hoc) notwithstanding the artificial break/breaks inservice
g)	No *nat* *pre* *bod* *pas*	*distinction should be made with reference to the* *ure of management of the institution where* *vious* *service* *was* *rendered* *(private/local* *y/Government) while considering for counting* *t services under this clause.*

¶97

(Emphasis added)

¶98

¶99

In terms of the afore-extracted statute, promotion under

¶100

CAS depicts that previous regular service, whether National or International as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific / professional organizations, should be counted for recruitment and promotion under CAS. Clause (g) therein indicates that no distinction should be made with reference to nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered, be it private, local body or Government while considering the past service under this clause.

¶101

The interpretation of the UGC Regulations or

¶102

the Statutes of the University need not detain this Court for long as this Court had considered the statutes of the Karnataka University, which are in pari materia with the statutes of the University and allowed a petition directing past service of that petitioner to be taken into

¶103

¶104

consideration for the purpose of grant of promotion under the CAS in Writ Petition No.100353 of 2018, decided on 13-03-2019. A writ appeal filed by the Karnataka University in Writ Appeal No.100436 of 2019 was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 02-01-2020. The Karnataka University carried those decisions to the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.8088 of 2020, which was converted into a Civil Appeal in Civil Appeal No.4079 of 2020 and the decision of the High Court was upturned by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court.

¶105

Therefore, in the facts obtaining in the case

¶106

before the Apex Court and the decision rendered, in my view, would cover the case of the University and against the petitioners on all fours. Wherefore, it is germane to notice the facts and findings of the Apex Court in the case of REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND

¶107

¶108

ANOTHER v. DR. PRABHUGOWDA AND ANOTHER,

¶109

wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

¶110

“3. By the aforesaid Order, Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the appellants herein, calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 (S-PRO) dated 13.03.2019 allowing the writ petition and declaring that the effective date of “Career Advancement Scheme” (for short ‘CAS’) promotion of the first respondent-writ petitioner was 01.01.2009 and also directed to grant all consequential benefits to him, as flow from such fixation. In fact, the CAS promotion was already given to the first respondent-writ petitioner and pay fixation has already been made, but it was from the date of 28.10.2013.

¶111

4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that, the first respondent-writ petitioner had claimed his promotion under CAS, promulgated by the UGC, to be given effect from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, from which date, promotion is given to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was earlier working as an Associate Professor, in J.S.S College, which is affiliated to Karnataka University. In pursuance of syndicate Resolution No. 24 dated 26.10.2013, the writ petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the P.G. Department of Studies in Mathematics in

¶112

¶113

the University. Pursuant to his appointment, he joined in the service of the University on 28.10.2013 and vide order dated 31.12.2015, his service was confirmed with effect from 28.10.2013.

¶114

5. By issuing Circular dated 04.07.2013, the University invited applications for promotion, from eligible Assistant Professors, Associate professor and Professor (stage 5) under CAS. The first respondent-writ petitioner made an application in response to the said Circular, for promotion to the post of Professor under UGC, CAS. He appeared for interview on 12.08.2014 before the Board of Appointment (BOA), which has recommended his case for promotion and accordingly promotion order was issued on 16.02.2016, promoting the writ petitioner as a Professor, with effect from 28.10.2013, that is, from the date of his eligibility, to the said post. He has been promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 28.10.2013, taking into consideration his past three years of service in previous college, where he worked as Associate Professor. The claim of the first respondent-writ petitioner in the High Court was that as he has completed three years of service in the cadre of Associate Professor from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009, as such, he ought to have been considered for promotion under CAS from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013. During the relevant time, neither he was in the service of the University nor working in any of the constituent Colleges of the University, but he was in

¶115

¶116

service of J.S.S College, Dharwad, which is an affiliated College to the Dharwad University. The first respondent-writ petitioner made representations dated 18.03.2016 and 25.07.2016, in this regard, for which, he was replied by the University on 04.08.2017. The claim of the writ petitioner, for grant of CAS promotion from 01.01.2009, was placed before the Syndicate of the University, and the Syndicate in its meeting held on 19.07.2017, vide Resolution No. 36, has rejected the claim, stating that there is no provision to grant the said benefit from 01.01.2009, as claimed. In accordance with the Resolution of the Syndicate, an endorsement came to be issued by the University on 04.08.2017, a copy which was served on the writ petitioner.

¶117

6. Challenging the Resolution of the Syndicate of the University, bearing Resolution No. 36, dated 19.07.2017 and the endorsement dated 04.08.2017, the first respondent has filed writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, questioning the aforesaid resolution, endorsement and by seeking further consequential directions to fix the eligibility date from 01.01.2009 for promotion to the post of Professor under CAS, in mathematics, instead of 28.10.2013 and to reconsider his representation dated 10.08.2017. The claim of the first respondentwrit petitioner was opposed, by filing the written note of objections in the High Court but the learned Single Judge of the High

¶118

¶119

Court, by Order dated 13.03.2019, allowed the writ petition, by recording a finding that the writ petitioner completed three years of teaching by 01.01.2009, as such effective date should have been 01.01.2009. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that his service in affiliated College is also to be considered for the purpose of promotion under CAS and consequently writ petitioner is entitled for promotion from 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.

¶120

7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein preferred the writ appeal in writ appeal No. 100436 of 2019 and by Order dated 02.01.2020, the said writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the Order of the learned Single Judge, by recording a finding that the magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings “University/Colleges”, as found in Clause 12.7 of the Statute. The Division Bench has held that the word ‘colleges’ used in the Statute, not only includes constituent colleges, but also includes other colleges, which are affiliated to Karnataka University.

¶121

8. We have heard Sri Kirit Javali, learned counsel appearing for the appellantUniversity and Sri Siddarath Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner.

¶122

9. Having heard the learned counsels on both sides, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.

¶123

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that, it is an admitted

¶124

¶125

position that, prior to joining the appellantUniversity, respondent No. 1-writ petitioner was working as Associate Professor from 01.01.2006 till 23.10.2013 (with an affiliated College) and thereafter, he joined the University as Assistant Professor. It is submitted that at the time of recruitment, respondent No. 1 did not apply for the post of Professor, as he was well aware that he was not eligible for the same. The writ petitioner was promoted as Professor vide Order dated 26.10.2013, he joined the University service with effect from 28.10.2013. It is submitted that the effective date of promotion of respondent No. 1, for the post of Professor, cannot be from any date prior to 28.10.2013, as at that point of time, he was admittedly not in the employment of University. Further it is brought to the notice by the learned counsel that very preamble of the statute makes it clear that the candidate must have been on the rolls of the University or a Constituent College. It is further submitted that the benefit of Clause 17 of the Statute was duly given to respondent No. 1, and his previous service was considered for promotion, but as he was not in the effective service of the University, the University has rightly given the effective date from 28.10.2013. It is submitted that as per the statute framed by the University, the incumbent teacher was required to be on the rolls of the ‘constituent College’ only and not ‘affiliated College’. It is submitted that interpretation accorded to the statute by the High Court, is improper, as is evident from the meaningful reading of complete statute, as well as the preamble thereof.

¶126

¶127

11. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri Siddarath Bhatnagar, appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the Statute framed by the University for effecting promotions in CAS, applies to Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of Constituent Colleges, Directors of Physical education and Librarians and allied posts. It is submitted that the term “principals of Constituent Colleges”, ought to be read disjunctively, as against the other posts, mentioned in the provision, since it appears only qua a category of principals and not other posts. By referring to the definition under Section 2(2) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, it is submitted that term “College” includes ‘Constituent College’ as well as ‘affiliated College’. It is further submitted that as the High Court has correctly interpreted the relevant statute and has recorded a finding that the effective date of promotion should have been 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

¶128

12. Before we consider the rival submissions made by the learned counsels on both sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain relevant provisions of the statute, governing the direct recruitment, promotion under CAS, framed by the University. The preamble and the title of the statute, read as under:

¶129

“ PREAMBLE: Consequent upon the extension of UGC pay scales as

¶130

¶131

revised from 01.01.2006 in respect of Teachers, Librarians and Physical education Personnel of Universities and Constituent Colleges and issuance of letter No. 1-32/2006-U II/UI-I (i) dated 31.12.2008 of the Government of the India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi and Notification No. F-3-1/2009 (PS) dated 23.09.2009 of the University Grants Commission New Delhi and Government of Karnataka Order No. ED 37 UNE 2009, Bangalore dated 24.12.2009 prescribing the revised norms of recruitment and qualification for appointment and promotion of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Physical Education Directors and Librarians, it has become imperative to frame the statutes for recruitment and promotion of the above mentioned personnel in the Karnatak University, Dharwad.

¶132

TITLE: Statute governing the direct recruitment, promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and conduct of interview to the posts of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Principals of Constituent Colleges, Directors of Physical Education and Librarians under Section 40(1)(k) of KSU Act, 2000.”

¶133

¶134

13. Clause 12 of the Statute deals with the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee for CAS Promotion. Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the statute read as under:

¶135

“ 12.6 CAS promotions being a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher holding a substantive sanctioned post, on superannuation of the individual incumbent, the said post shall revert back to its original cadre.

¶136

12.7 The incumbent teacher must be on the role and active service of the University/Colleges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.”

¶137

14. Clause 13 of the statute deals with the Stages of Promotion under CAS of Incumbent and Newly Appointed Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors. Clauses 13.7 and 13.8 of the statute, read as under:

¶138

“13.7 Assistant Professors completing three years of teaching in third grade (stage 3) shall be eligible, subject to the qualifying conditions and the API based PBAS requirements prescribed by this Statute, to move to the next higher grade (stage 4) and to be designated as Associate Professor.

¶139

13.8 Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and

¶140

¶141

designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to:

¶142

(a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in Table I-III of Annexure-I stipulated in this Statute, and

¶143

(b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. Provided that, no teacher, other than those with a Ph.D., shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.”

¶144

15. Clause 17 of the statute provides for Counting of Past Service for Direct Recruitment and Promotion Under CAS. A comprehensive reading of the statute makes it very clear that for the purpose of granting CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher and on superannuation of the individual incumbent, the said post shall revert back to its original cadre. It is also clear that the incumbent teacher must be on the “roll and active services of the University or the College”, on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for selection under CAS Promotion. A harmonious reading of Clauses 12.6 and 12.7 of the Statute read with the Preamble thereof, makes it clear that the term “College”

¶145

¶146

used in the said statute is referable to only Constituent College but not affiliated College.

¶147

16. The High Court, by losing sight of a vital aspect namely, that the first respondent was not in actual service of the University or of the constituent College, has ordered to extend the benefit from 01.01.2009, on the ground that he has completed three years of service, by working as Assistant Professor in Mathematics in UGC pay scale with effect from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2009. There cannot be any promotion in the University for the period where the writ petitioner was not in effective service of the University. The University is not expected to order promotion for the period when he was working in affiliated college. The High Court, by mere mathematical calculation, by basing on the service certificate which is “Annexure D” before the High Court, has held that as he has completed three years of service as Assistant Professor in UGC scale and therefore the effective date of promotion should be 01.01.2009 and not 28.10.2013, as granted by the University. Further, the High Court has fell in error in interpreting clause/paragraph 12.7 of the Statute, by giving liberal meaning to the word “colleges”, by extending to “affiliated college”. Even the Division Bench has also committed the same error by recording a finding that a magnanimous interpretation is to be given for the wordings University/Colleges, as used in

¶148

¶149

the paragraph/clause 12.7 of the Statute. The University has correctly interpreted the various clauses of the Statute and by giving the benefit of past service, has given effect to his promotion from the date of entry into the service of the University. It is also to be noticed that at the time of appointment itself, though the writ petitioner has completed three years of service, fully knowing that he was not eligible for appointment as a Professor, he has not claimed the post of Professor. Even the representations filed by the writ petitioner indicate that he claimed notional service, in spite of the same, the High Court, by misconstruing the statute contrary to its objectives, as mentioned in the preamble liberally construed, going beyond the scope of the statute and granted all consequential benefits, by declaring that the effective date for promotion was to be 01.01.2009 instead of 28.10.2013.

¶150

17. We do not find any substance in the argument made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that the term “principals of Constituent Colleges” ought to be read disjunctively as against the other posts mentioned in the provision. If it is to be read in the manner as sought to be argued by learned counsel, same will run contrary to the objectives and preamble of the statute itself. Even the submission of the learned counsel relying on the definition under Section 2(2) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, also does not render any assistance to support his case. Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000,

¶151

¶152

applies to all the colleges, which includes private college. Even private colleges have to seek affiliation from the jurisdictional University, as such the College is widely defined in the Act. Said definition cannot be readily imported, as defined, for the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS. For the purpose of grant of promotions under CAS, the word ‘College’ is to be interpreted, keeping in mind, the preamble of the statute, governing promotions.

¶153

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear view that, the incumbent teacher, who is entitled for promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University. Though the earlier service is to be counted for the purpose of giving benefit of promotion, but effective date for all purposes is only from the date of entry of first respondent into the University service, i.e, 28.10.2013. The University is not expected to grant promotion, covering the period, anterior to the entry of service of the first respondent into University. As such, we are of the view that the University has rightly given the benefit of promotion from 28.10.2013.

¶154

19. For the aforesaid reasons, this civil appeal is allowed, and judgment and Order dated 02.01.2020, passed by the High Court in writ appeal No. 100436 of 2019 (S-PRO), is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the writ petition filed by the first

¶155

¶156

respondent in writ petition No. 100353 of 2018 (C-PRO) stands dismissed. No order as to costs.”

¶157

(emphasis supplied)

¶158

Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court

¶159

which was considering identical circumstance of a different University of the State of Karnataka, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶160

12. It is also germane to notice the subsequent

¶161

developments after filing of the writ petition as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners participated in the selection process for promotion under the CAS. The proceedings of the Selection Committee are germane to be noticed:

¶162

“The Selection Committee perused applications, bio data with the Performance Appraisal reports of the following teachers, for promotion from the cadre of Associate Professor to the cadre of Professor, as per the AICTE Regulations, 2012 notified vide Notification No.F-37-3/Legal/AICTE/2012, dated 8-11-2012 and as per the minimum

¶163

¶164

requirement specified in Table II & III thereof and University Statutes framed thereunder and also subsequent AICTE amendments 2016 (Notification dated 4.01.2016).

¶165

Further the Selection Committee resolved to consider only the services of the candidates rendered in UVCE as teacher s for promotion under CAS to the AGP of Rs.10,000/- of Professor. All the candidates expressed their willingness to consider only UVCE teaching experience for their promotion to the pay scale of Professor in UVCE. The Selection Committee proceeded to conduct the interview after the candidates expressed their willingness.

¶166

The Selection Committee assessed the candidate based on the procedure outlined under Clause 16 of the Statutes – “Statutes relating to Direct Recruitment, Career Advancement Scheme and Miscellaneous provisions including the conduct of interview to implement the AICTE pay scales revised from 01-01-2006 to the Teachers, Librarians, Physical Education personnel of Bangalore University constituent Engineering College” which was assented by the Chancellor on 7- 10-2016. The details of Assessment as per Table-VII as stipulated in AICTE Regulations 2012 is enclosed on a separate sheet with the signatures of all the Members of the Committee.

¶167

The Selection Committee recommends for promotion of following teachers from the

¶168

¶169

cadre of Associate Professor (stage-4) to the AGP of Rs.10,000/- of Professor (Stage-5) on supernumerary basis with effect from the date of fulfilling the requirements for the promotion, by considering their teaching experience exclusively in UVCE:

¶170

1. Dr. A.S.Ravikumar	- w.e.f. 05-03-2010
2. Dr. Manjesh L	- w.e.f. 11-05-2010
3. Dr. M.Keshava Murthy	- w.e.f. 16-05-2012
4. Dr. Sadath Ali Khan Zai	- w.e.f. 01-06-2013
5. *Dr. P.S.Nagaraja*	*- w.e.f. 02-06-2013*
6. Dr.S.Gangadhara	- w.e.f. 06-07-2013
7. Dr.Shivakumar J.Nyamathi	- w.e.f. 29-03-2014
8. *Dr. A.V.Sriram*	*- w.e.f. 01-06-2014*
9. *Dr. B.Viswanath*	*- w.e.f. 03-06-2014*
10. Dr.B.P.Annapurna	- w.e.f. 04-06-2014
11.Dr. L.Govindaraju	- w.e.f. 05-06-2014
12.Dr.G.Suresh	- w.e.f. 09-06-2014
13.Dr. Krishna A	- w.e.f. 07-07-2014
14.Dr. M.Inayathulla	- w.e.f. 11-03-2015”

¶171

In these proceedings, petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 participated and are granted promotion under the CAS. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were not called for interview. The promotions are granted by the University with effect from the dates on which they had obtained Ph.D degree as for the posts of Associate Professor and Professor, acquisition of Ph.D is a requisite qualification. Pursuant

¶172

¶173

to the aforesaid proceedings of the Selection Committee, petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 are all promoted to the cadre of Professor on 25-01-2019. The 3^rd petitioner is given the date of eligibility to the post of Professor with effect from 01-06-2014, the 4^th petitioner is granted promotion with effect from 03-06-2014 and the 5^th petitioner is granted promotion with effect from 02-06-2013. Since promotion of the petitioners is to the post of Professor, the dates of eligibility are given by the University from the respective dates on which they had obtained Ph.D. and have completed three years thereafter. Insofar as it concerns petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they are presently in the cadre of Associate Professor, who are claiming to be promoted to the cadre of Professor. To seek such promotion, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have to possess the qualification of Ph.D. as Associate Professors and complete three years, with requisite qualification, only then their entitlement to be promoted to the cadre of Professor comes about.

¶174

¶175

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have acquired Ph.D. on

¶176

08.12.2017 and 14-11-2018, respectively. Therefore, they are not called for interview as Associate Professors with Ph.D. and three years of service only are entitled to be considered for promotion under CAS to the post of Professor. All other petitioners had obtained Ph.D. in the years 2009 and 2010. No fault can be found with the dates of eligibility that is granted in the orders of promotion insofar as it concerns petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 and denying such promotion to petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶177

Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that their past service should be taken into consideration and retrospective dates of promotion should be granted, is clearly not available in the light of the interpretation of the Apex Court of the UGC Regulations and the statutes which are in pari materia with the statutes obtaining the case at hand.

¶178

¶179

In the result, the writ petition lacks merit and

¶180

is accordingly dismissed.

¶181

Sd/JUDGE

¶182

nvj CT:MJ

N Jayaramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

N Jayaramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bulls Eye Outdoor Solutions Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Valmark Fortune Vs State of Karnataka

M/S C B C I Society for Medical Education Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M v Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Prakruti Century Properties Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Prakash K L Vs Bangalore University