Partly allowed

Dr Venkatesha v. Mysore University

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024WP/22487/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that although petitioners lacked NET qualification, they were entitled to retain their promoted post. The fixing of State Pay Scale was quashed, and the University was directed to fix the appropriate State Pay Scale for Assistant Librarians with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reversion to Library Assistant declared illegal; fixing of State Pay Scale at Assistant Librarian rate ordered.

Dr Venkatesha Vs Mysore University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 22487 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 22493 OF 2018 (S-RES) IN WP NO. 22487/2018

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DR. VENKATESHA S/O VENKATA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN -UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANASAGANGOTHRI MYSORE -570 006.

¶11

C. MARISWAMY S/O CHANNAMALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANASAGANGOTHRI

¶14

MYSORE -570 006.

¶15

NAGASUNDARA

¶16

S/O P. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN -UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANASAGANGOTHRI MYSORE -570 006.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶19

SMT. JAYASHRI JAGADISH D/O DEVKUMAR R. HAMIGI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-UGC MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MANASAGANGOTHRI MYSORE -570 006.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SMT. M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶22

SRI. K. PUTTE GOWDA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

MYSORE UNIVERSITY VISWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA "CRAWFORD HALL" MYSORE - 570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES) VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶26

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI - 110 002 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶31

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2018; QUASH ORDERS ALL DATED 28.4.2018 ISSUEDS TO PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY BY THE R-1/MYSORE UNIVERSITY (UNDER ANNX-H, H1 TO H3 TO THE W.P.) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD FLOW THEREFROM.

¶32

IN WP NO. 22493/2018

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

DR D GIDDAIAH S/O LATE DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN-UGC, MYSORE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, MANASAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570006.

¶35

…PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SMT. M.L. SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR

¶37

SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

MYSORE UNIVERSITY VISWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA, "CRAWFORD HALL", MYSORE-570005, REPRESETNED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶42

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES), VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶43

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI - 110 002 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2; SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶45

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DTD28.4.2018; QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. ET. 4(2)/54/2008-09 DATED 28.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-1 MYSORE UNIVERSITY[UNDER ANNEXURE-K TO THE W.P.] BY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS THAT WOULD FLOW THEREFROM.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petitioners, while working as Library Assistants with the Mysuru University [ University ], have been given promotion as Assistant Librarians respectively in the years 2005 and 2009 with pay fixation from the corresponding years. Presently, the petitioners, except the fourth petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.22487/2018, have attained the age of superannuation, and the fourth petitioner in W.P. No.22487/2018 will attain the age of superannuation and demit the office by the end of this month.

¶51

The petitioners are aggrieved because the University by the impugned Orders dated 28.04.2018 [Annexures-H, H1 to H3 insofar as the petitioners in W.P. No.22487/2018 and Annexure-K insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No.22493/2018] has reverted them to the posts of Library Assistants with State Pay Scale

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶54

as is admissible to such post with a decision to

¶55

recover the excess amounts paid.

¶56

The details such as the dates of promotion

¶57

given to the petitioners, their educational

¶58

qualification and date of retirement are as follows:

¶59

*The* *rank* of *the petitioners* in *corresponding* *writ petitions*	*Date* of *Promotion as* *Assistant* *Librarian*	*The* *details* of *post* *graduation/* *Ph.D*¹	*Date* of *Retirement*
The Petitioner No.1 in W.P. No. 22493 of 2018	04-05-2004 (under Rule 32 of KCSR) 16-04-2005 (under Rule 42 of KCSR)	Ph. D in Library Science on 24- 07-2015	30-11-2019
The Petitioner No.1 in W.P. No. 22487 of 2018	16-03-2009 Independent charge 15-06-2010 Regularized by syndicate decision.	Ph. D in Library Science on 05- 09-2017	30-08-2023
The Petitioner No. 2 in W.P. No.22487 of 2018	16-03-2009 Independent charge 15-06-2010 Regularized by syndicate decision.	Master’s in library science; Masters in economics.	30-09-2022

¶60

1 The petitioners have admittedly completed their post graduation before being promoted as Assistant Librarians.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶63

The Petitioner	16-03-2009	M.Sc	in	30-05-2024
No.3	Independent	Geology	&
in W.P. No. 22487 of 2018	charge 15-06-2010 Regularized by syndicate decision.	Master’s Library Science .	in
The Petitioner No.4 In W.P. No. 22487 of 2018	16-03-2009 Independent charge 15-06-2010 Regularized by syndicate decision.	M.A. sociology Master’s Library Scie	in & in nce.	30-06-2024

¶64

The impugned orders are essentially in the

¶65

premise that the relevant UGC Guidelines on Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 [for short, 'the UGC Regulations, 2010' ] stipulate that the posts of Assistant Librarians can be filled only by direct recruitment, and notwithstanding the same, the petitioners have been promoted as Assistant Librarians .

¶66

The petitioners have been issued with Notices in the month of October 2017 calling upon

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶69

them to show cause against reversion and recovery of the excess amount paid consequent to inevitable refixation of pay scale while also recording that according to the University’s relevant Statute, the posts of 50% of Assistant Librarians must be filled up by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. The petitioners have filed their responses to these notices, but ultimately the first respondent has issued the impugned orders based on its Syndicate's Resolution, which is essentially because the petitioners are promoted and they had not qualified in NET as required under the relevant UGC Guidelines.

¶70

Ms. M L Suvarna, the learned counsel for the petitioners, essentially impugns the University's Orders on two grounds.

¶71

a. Firstly, that the decision to revert the petitioners to the post of Library Assistants is because of audit observation by CAG for the year

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶74

ending March 2017, but a coordinate Bench of this Court, on 12.09.2023, has disposed of the writ petition in W.P. No.2225/2019 and connected matters by similarly situate persons observing that though the CAG can make observations with regard to the manner in which appointments are made or pay scales sanctioned and fixed, it cannot sit in judgment over the selection of a candidate by the competent authority and that the competent authority cannot overreact because of the CAG's observations and pass orders to the detriment of the employees.

¶75

b. Secondly, that the petitioners have been granted promotion and UGC pay scale according to the amended Statute of the University which enables filling up of 50% of the posts of Library Assistants by promotion and once the promotion is granted according to the pay scale admissible, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer reversion based on the UGC

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶78

Regulations which are brought into force after the petitioners had been given both promotion and benefit of UGC Pay Scale.

¶79

Sri K S Bheemaiah, the learned counsel

¶80

for the University, and Sri Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submit that they cannot, given the provisions of the University's Statute, dispute that the petitioners are granted promotion to the posts of Assistant Librarians as per the provisions of such Statute, but they argue that the petitioners cannot assert, when they did not possess as of the relevant date the minimum qualification prescribed for the posts of Assistant Librarians, a right to receive UGC Pay Scale from such date.

¶81

The learned counsels rely upon the State Government’s order dated 15.11.1999 to emphasize that the State Government, while extending coverage of UGC Pay Scales to Librarians and others in the

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶84

University, has specifically stipulated that minimum qualification for appointment would be according to the standards prescribed by the UGC and as amended and supplemented from time to time and that the Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for the Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards Regulations, 1998 [as revised on 24.12.2009] were in vogue. These Regulations are referred to as ' UGC Regulations, 1998 .'

¶85

Sri K S Bheemaiah and Sri Naveen Chandrashekar further argue that the Government of India has modified the Scheme under the UGC Regulations 1998 on 24.12.2009 based on the Fifth Central Pay Commission, and for the posts of Library Assistants, the minimum qualification prescribed is Master’s Degree in Library Science/Information Science/Documentary or an equivalent professional

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶88

Degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade with National Eligibility Test [NET] qualification. The NET Tests are conducted by the UGC or any other agency approved by the UGC, and the learned Counsels submit that the petitioners may have had Master’s degree in the relevant subjects as of the date of promotion but none of them have qualified in NET, and as such, the petitioners would not come under the UGC coverage.

¶89

In rejoinder, Ms. M L Suvarna submits

¶90

that the UGC Regulations 1998, and more specifically Regulation 3.0, stipulate that the University could exempt the requirement from NET qualification and that this Court must infer such exemption from the following circumstances.

¶91

[a] The University, which has granted promotions with the UGC Pay Scales to the petitioners, has also granted to them Academic Grade Pay [AGP] in

¶92

13 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶94

terms of the UGC Regulations thereon which is attached to the UGC Pay Scale. If the University had not granted exemption, it would definitely not have extended the AGP.

¶95

[b] The petitioners were entitled to career advancement in accordance with the Regulations therefor and they have been admitted to such career advancement. The Career Advancement Scheme notified by the UGC stipulates, amongst others, that the Teachers without Ph.D can go up to the level of Lecturer Selection Grade, a post equivalent to the post of Assistant Librarians and the upward career progression shall be through the selection process evolved in accordance with the UGC Guidelines and the AGP

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶98

is attached to the UGC Pay Scales in

¶99

the pay band Rs.8000-275-13500.

¶100

This Court must at the outset observe that

¶101

the University and other respondents do not contest that the University’s relevant Statute provides for promotions to the post of Assistants Librarians up to 50% of the strength and that the petitioners have been promoted in view of the same. The petitioners possessed post graduation as of the relevant date is also not seriously contested. These circumstances must have a significant impact on the decision to revert the petitioners to the posts of Library Assistants from the posts of Assistant Librarians and there must be just orders in this regard. However, the crucial question that this Court must consider is whether it can be justly opined that the petitioners, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that they have not qualified in NET, are entitled to UGC Pay Scale.

¶102

15 -

¶103

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶104

In this regard, this Court must first consider that the petitioners cannot dispute that the UGC Regulations 1998 stipulate² that for the post of Assistant Librarians with the University, a candidate, apart from Master’s Degree in Library Science and other subjects as is prescribed or equivalent professional Degree with at least 55% of the marks

¶105

2 Regulation 3.0: The minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% of the marks at the master's level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test, or an accredited test, shall remain for the appointment of Lecturers. It would be optional for the University to exempt Ph.D holders from NET or to require NET, in their case, either as a desirable or essential qualification for appointment as Lecturers in the University Departments and Colleges. The minimum requirement of 55% should not be insisted upon for Professors, Readers, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Directors of Physical Education, Deputy Directors of Physical Education for the existing incumbents who are already in the University system. However, these marks should be insisted upon for those entering the system from outside and those at the entry point of Lecturers, Assistant Registrars, Assistant Librarians, Assistant Director of Physical Education.

¶106

16 -

¶107

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶108

[or its equivalent Grade], must qualify in NET, and the exemption that is contemplated is at the option of the University for Ph.D holders, and even the choice to not even insist on NET is with the University.

¶109

The petitioners do not dispute that the University has not by any specific order exempted this requirement generally or in the case of the petitioners, and in fact, as is canvassed before this Court, the petitioners assert that this exemption must be inferred because they have been admitted to CAS benefits which is consequent to the grant of UGC Pay Scale and that their CAS benefits are not because of promotion alone but as selection. This Court cannot infer that the University has admitted exemption on either of these grounds.

¶110

It is obvious that the petitioners have been promoted according to the University's Statute without reference to the minimum qualification requirement according to the UGC Regulations in

¶111

17 -

¶112

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶113

vogue. If these requirements were to be considered, then the petitioners could not have been definitely admitted to UGC Pay Scale because the petitioners did not qualify in NET. If there is to be an inference as is now argued in the absence of the petitioners qualifying in NET, it would be contriving a situation that was not even under contemplation. The consequence of granting CAS benefits with AGP would also be the same, and what falls from this is that the petitioners were admitted to UGC Pay Scale and CAS without possessing the requisite qualification.

¶114

Further, the proceedings with the issuance of show cause notice may have been because of the CAG's Report but with both the show cause notice and the impugned orders being silent about the CAG's observations, this Court cannot opine that the decision is only because of the audit observations. For the aforesaid, the question for

¶115

18 -

¶116

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶117

consideration is answered against the petitioners holding that the petitioners were entitled to hold the post of Assistant Librarians but on State Pay Scale admissible to such post with all consequential CAS benefits. However, it is declared that the decision to cause recovery, as is indicated in the impugned orders, cannot be until the State Pay Scale is fixed with the petitioners being admitted to permissible Career Advancement benefits that they would be entitled to in law. Hence, the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

[a] The petitions are allowed in part, and the impugned Orders of the first respondent dated 28.04.2018 [Annexures-H, H1 to H3 insofar as the petitioners in W.P. No.22487/2018 and Annexure-K insofar as the petitioner in W.P. No.22493/2018] insofar as reverting the petitioners to the post of 'Library Assistants' from the post of 'Assistant Librarians' are declared bad

¶120

19 -

¶121

NC: 2024:KHC:21888 WP No. 22487 of 2018 C/W WP No. 22493 of 2018

¶122

in law. The decision to fix the petitioners'

¶123

pay according to the State Pay Scale attached to the post of 'Library Assistants' is quashed.

¶124

[b] The University is directed to fix the State Pay Scale admissible for the post of 'Assistant Librarians' and admit the

¶125

petitioners to all consequential benefits under permissible Career Advancement Scheme.

¶126

[c] The University shall complete this exercise within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and until this exercise is completed, there shall be no action for

¶127

recovery.

¶128

Sd/JUDGE

¶129

AN/-

Dr Venkatesha v. Mysore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Venkatesha v. Mysore University

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

Dr G v Jayaramaiah Vs the Principal Secretary

Dr K M Mahadevan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudresh R Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Niranjan Murthy K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M H Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Poorani. R Vs State of Karnataka