Assistant Professor appointed under backlog recruitment was denied increments for completing his Ph.D eleven years after joining, beyond the seven-year condition in his appointment letter. The Division Bench upheld the single judge's dismissal, holding the appellant could not disown the stipulation in his own appointment terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:35556-DB WA No. 1014 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1014 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.508, 'ANUGRAHA', JAYAPURA HOBLI, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BOGADI 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570 026.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA.A, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:35556-DB WA No. 1014 of 2023
M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1, R2 &R4; SRI. MAHESH.B, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.7475/2020 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
NC: 2024:KHC:35556-DB WA No. 1014 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
NC: 2024:KHC:35556-DB WA No. 1014 of 2023
by stating in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order as under:
"8. Perusal of the aforementioned condition reflects that, the petitioner ought to have completed Ph.D degree within seven years on his report as Assistant Professor in the 5th respondent-College. Notification dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure-R7) issued by the All India Council for Technical Education, whereby, the Item No. 53, reads as under:
| Whether, Asst. |
Such candidates will |
|---|---|
| Professor (Redesignated | be required to |
| as Associate Professor | complete Ph.D within |
| w.e.f 01.01.2006), who | 7 years from the date |
| are not able to complete | of joining, failing |
| the Ph.D in seven years | which increments |
| from the date of Joining | shall be stopped until |
| (Direct /CAS) will be revered back |
Ph.D earned |
9. Having taken note of the aforementioned aspects, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, such relaxation has been provided to some of the employees, however, such illegality cannot be perpetuated in derogance of the Rule provided in the Notification dated 04.01.2016. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner was well aware about the said aspect as on the date of reporting to the duty pursuant to the
appointment of order dated 20.11.2004 and in that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned Endorsement issued by the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority, if so advised."
by Mr. Nagarajappa.A for the simple reason that the terms of appointment issued to the petitioner clearly stipulates, he is required to complete Ph.D degree within seven years from the date of joining. Concedingly, the petitioner could able to complete Ph.D after 11 years of joining i.e., beyond the period of seven years so stipulated. Even if there was no stipulation for the appointments made before 2004, when there is a stipulation in the appointment letter issued to the appellant, the
appellant cannot disown the same. Moreover, till the filing of the petition before the learned Single Judge, the appellant did not challenge such stipulation in the appointment letter. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been making representations in that regard. We are afraid making representations and not approaching the Court would not help the case of the appellant.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2023 shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE
Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE
VM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant could be denied increments for not completing his Ph.D within seven years of joining as stipulated in his appointment letter.
Whether the seven-year Ph.D stipulation applied to a backlog vacancy appointment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Nanjundaiah S/o Late Ningappa
The State of Karnataka rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education
The State of Karnataka rep by its Additional Secretary, Department of Higher Education (Technical Education)
The Director of Technical Education
The Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Finance Department (Service-1)
The National Institute of Engineering rep by its Principal
V Kameswar Rao
Rajesh Rai K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
