Allowed

Sri Satish Kumar M v. Sri Prashanth P a

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2023WA/4896/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ appeal and quashed a single judge order that had set aside the appellant's appointment as an Associate Professor. The Court held the appellant met the experience requirements and the selection committee was an expert body whose academic opinion on subject relevance could not be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.07.2017 set aside; writ petition dismissed; appellant entitled to consequential benefits.

Sri Satish Kumar M Vs Sri Prashanth P a — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

W.A. NO.4896 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . SRI. SATISH KUMAR .M S/O MURARI P AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT C/O. THAMANNA S

¶11

OPP. TO KEB KOTHATHI MANDYA-571 402.

¶12

AND ALSO UNDER THE ORDERS OF APPOINTMENT AT PES COLLEGE OF

¶13

ENGINEERING, MANDYA.

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADV.,)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . SRI. PRASHANTH P.A. S/O ANANTHASWAMY M AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS AT PRESENT WORKING AS

¶18

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY

¶19

AT SAI VIDYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RAJANAKUNTE

¶20

¶21

DODDABALLAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560 003.

¶22

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TECHNICAL) M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

3 . THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

4 . PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MANDYA-571 401.

¶25

5 . THE PRINCIPAL PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MANDYA-571 401.

¶26

THE REGISTRAR VISVESVRAYA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY INAM SANGAM, BELGAUM-590018.

¶27

….RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2 SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R4 & R5 SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV., FOR R6)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10/7/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 3669/2015.

¶30

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This intra court appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10.07.2017, by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' for short) has been allowed and the orders dated 29.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 by which appellant was appointed to the post of Associate Professor in PES College of Engineering (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution' for short) has been quashed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.

¶34

On 21.11.2012, Principal of the Institution

¶35

issued a notification inviting applications for one post of Associate Professor in Chemistry in General Merit

¶36

category. As per the notification, on or before 27.12.2012, the applications along with necessary documents duly attested, should be submitted. In

¶37

¶38

respect of the post in question, the qualification and service experience was required as per revised All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Rules and Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Karnataka Government.

¶39

The Government order dated 31.01.2010 which prescribes the qualification for the post in question.

¶40

Assistant	By direct	For direct recruit	ment
Professor	recruitment	(1) Must possess	Ph.D
Engineering		Degree with the	first
College (Non-		class in the Ma	ster's
Engineering subjects) (Rs.12,000-		Degree level in appropriate subje	the cts
18,300) (AICTE)		Must have put i years experienc	n five e in
		teaching in institution recog by univ established by level of lecturer	an nized ersity law
		And must not attained the ag forty five years.	have e of

¶41

¶42

The appellant as well as the petitioner and

¶43

three other candidates submitted their applications

¶44

along with necessary documents. The Selection committee interviewed the candidates on 05.02.2013 and made a recommendation for appointment of the appellant on the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry. The Institution thereafter sought approval of the Government for appointment of the appellant, which was granted on 29.12.2014. The appellant by an order dated 31.12.2014 was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in Chemistry.

¶45

5. The appointment of the appellant was

¶46

assailed in a writ petition by respondent No1. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated 10.07.2017 inter alia held that as per the clarification dated 11.11.2010 issued by Vishveshvarayya Technological University (VTU), biochemistry is not a relevant subject for chemistry. It was further held that as per

¶47

¶48

the Government Order, a candidate should have five years of teaching experience in an institution recognized by the University established by law. It was therefore, held that the appellant did not have five years of requisite experience as he had taught in Pre University College for a period of one year out of the five years. Thus, the Learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification for the post. Therefore, the orders dated 29.12.2014 issued by State Government according approval to the selection of appellant and the order of appointment of the appellant dated 31.12.2014 were quashed and the institution was directed to seek approval of the State Government for appointment of respondent No.1 to the post of Associate Professor. It was further directed that in case, approval is granted, respondent No.1 shall be appointed to the said post forthwith.

¶49

¶50

It is not in dispute that during pendency of this appeal, the approval to appointment of respondent No.1 has been granted and respondent No.1 has been appointed on the post in question.

¶51

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the teaching experience of the appellant in Pre- University College is excluded, then also the appellant had the requisite teaching experience of five years. While inviting the attention of this court to the affidavit filed by the Registrar of VTU, it is contended that the University does not have any authority or power to prescribe educational qualification in respect of appointment of teaching and non teaching staff, in affiliated colleges, which are exclusively under the control of State Government. Alternatively, it is contended that determination of eligibility criteria/condition are essentially in the realm of policy and the scope of judicial review is

¶52

¶53

extremely limited. It is contended that the educational qualification of the appellant was examined by the selection committee and the same was accepted by the employer and therefore, no interference was called for in exercise of powers of judicial review. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in ' B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA VS. DR.R.VENKATASUBBAIAH AND OTHERS', (2008) 14 SCC 306 and 'ANAND YADAV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS', (2021) 12 SCC 390.

¶54

On the other hand, Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that biochemistry is not an appropriate subject for Master Degree Level in Chemistry. It is also urged that the appellant did not annex the documents indicating that he had five years teaching experience along with his application which

¶55

¶56

was submitted pursuant to recruitment notification. It is contended that the document relating to teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy was submitted subsequently after the cut off date. It is contended that Learned Single Judge therefore, has rightly set aside the appointment of the appellant. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'GANAPATH

¶57

SINGH GAANGARAM SINGH RAJPUR VS. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY', (2014) 3 SCC 767.

¶58

In pursuance of the direction issued on 16.06.2023, the counsel for institution has produced the record and has submitted that the appellant is eligible for appointment to the post in question. Learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the case of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant meets the eligibility criteria fixed by notification dated 31.01.2010.

¶59

¶60

We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant meets the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification dated 31.01.2010 for the appointment to the post of Associate Professor. It is not in dispute that the post of Assistant Professor has not been designated as Associate Professor and notification dated 31.01.2010 prescribes the eligibility criteria for the post in question.

¶61

Before proceeding further, we may advert to

¶62

the well settled legal principles with regard to scope of judicial review with regard to eligibility conditions in respect of appointment to teaching post. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VS.

¶63

C.D.GOVINDA RAO', AIR 1965 SC 491 has held that

¶64

when a recommendation made by an educational

¶65

¶66

institution for appointment to the institution are made before the courts, namely the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of any allegation about malafides. The recommendation made by an expert body should not likely be interfered with. In academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulation of the notification issued, the court shall keep their hands off since, those issues fall within the domain of experts. The aforesaid decision was referred to with approval in ' B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA supra, and 'UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER VS. NEHA ANIL BOBDE', (2013) 10 SCC 519 and 'UNION OF INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR', (2015) 12 SCC 291 .

¶67

It is equally well settled legal proposition that a candidate while applying for a post should have the requisite eligibility qualification the date fixed for

¶68

¶69

such purpose. A candidate has to produce necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets to establish that he possesses the requisite qualification. It is settled in law that depending on the facts of the case there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principles as it pertains in the domain of procedure. [See: ' DOLLY CHHANDA VS. CHAIRMAN, JEE AND OTHERS', (2005) 9 SCC 779].

¶70

In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. The eligibility condition which are required to be fulfilled for the selection to the post of Associate Professor are firstly, a candidate should have five years teaching experience in an institution recognized by University and secondly, that he should have a Ph.D Degree with first class in Master Degree Level in appropriate subject.

¶71

¶72

The particulars of teaching experience of the

¶73

appellant are extracted below for the facility of

¶74

reference:

¶75

Name of the Employer and Address	Date of Joining	Date of Relieving	Designation of Employment	Duration in Years	Excluding PHD (Part Time) Research Experiences	Including PHD Full time PHD Research Experience
University of Mysore	01.09.2000	15.01.2001	Guest Lecturer	4 Months
Bharathi College of Pharmacy, KM Doddi	01.07.1999	25.04.2002	Part time lecturer	2 years 9 months
PhD Research University	20.04.2000 Date of Joining PhD	29.04.2002	Part time PhD Candidate	2 years
of Mysore	30.04.2002	31.03.2005	Full Time PhD	2 years 11 months		35 months
Utah State University, USA	28.04.2005	31.07.2006	Postdoctoral Research Associate	1 years 3 months	15 months	15 months
Brandeis University, USA	01.08.2006	30.04.2007	Postdoctoral Research Associate	8 months	8 months	8 months
Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education (Mayo Clinic) USA	01.05.2007	19.03.2009	Postdoctoral Research Associate	1 years 10 months	22 months	22 months
The Agency of Science Technology and Research (ASTAR)	06.07.2009	15.01.2010	Postdoctoral Research Fellow	6 months	6 months	6 months
Singapore
Vidya Vikas Institute of Engineering & Technology - VTU affiliated	08.02.2010	27.12.2012 application last date PESCE	Associate Professor of Chemistry	2 years 10 months	34 months	34 months
	Total	experience in	Months		85 months	120 months
Dr.Satish	Kumar M	T	otal Experience	in years	7 years	10 years

¶76

¶77

Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid particulars, it is evident that the appellant had requisite teaching experience of five years even without taking into account his teaching experience in Pre University College. Thus, we need not examine the issue with regard to validity of teaching experience of the appellant in Pre University College. The aforesaid teaching experience has not been disputed by the State Government or by the Institution. The only objection urged on behalf of respondent No.1 is that the document pertaining to teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy was furnished by the appellant beyond the cut off date of submission of final documents.

¶78

It is relevant to notice that the appellant had initially annexed the document with regard to his teaching experience in Pre University College,

¶79

¶80

however, an objection was raised by the State Government with regard to his teaching experience pursuant to which, the appellant furnished the certificate with regard to his teaching experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy. The appellant had acquired the aforesaid teaching experience prior to 21.11.2022 i.e., prior to issuance of employment notification. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, we find that the appellant was justified in submitting the certificate with regard to his teaching experience subsequently.

¶81

The other issue involved in this appeal is whether biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master Degree in Chemistry. The selection committee, a committee which is an expert body has held that biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master Degree in Chemistry. There are no allegation of malafide made against the members of the selection committee.

¶82

¶83

Therefore, this court in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the selection committee, which is a body of experts and hold otherwise.

¶84

In view of preceding analysis and in view of our conclusion that appellant fulfils the criteria as prescribed in the notification dated 30.01.2010, it is not necessary for us to advert to the contention raised by respondent No.1 that Vishveshvarayya Technological University was competent to decide on the question of qualification for the post in question and the affidavit filed on its behalf in this appeal cannot be relied upon.

¶85

In the result, the order dated 10.07.2017 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3669/2015 is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.

¶86

¶87

Needless to state that the appellant shall be

¶88

entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶89

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

WA NO. 4896/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶96

[SRI SATISH KUMAR M VS. SRI PRASHANTH P A AND OTHERS]

¶97

AAJ & ARHJ : 06.07.2023 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) ORDER ON I.A.1/23

¶98

This case is disposed of vide order dated 23.06.2023. An application is filed to correct the typographical errors that has crept in the aforementioned judgment.

¶99

This Court has perused the application filed. There is no objection filed by the respondents. The corrections sought are in respect of the dates appearing in paragraphs No.3,9, 10 and 15 of the Judgment.

¶100

On perusal of the records, it is evident that the typographical errors have crept in. Hence, the application is to be allowed. For the reasons assigned in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, I.A.1/23 is allowed.

¶101

The following corrections be carried out in the judgment dated 23.06.2023:

¶102

(i) In paragraphs No. 3, 9 and 10 of the judgment, date of the Government order be corrected as 30.01.2010 in place of 31.01.2010.

¶103

¶104

(ii) Likewise, in paragraph No.15 of the judgment, the date is to be corrected as 21.11.2012 in place of date is 21.11.2022.

¶105

Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the judgment as aforesaid.

¶106

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 23.06.2023.

¶107