Partly allowed

Dr. Neema Gnanadev v. Bangalore University

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/22871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of an Assistant Professor's appointment and reinstatement. Held that delayed Validity Certificate due to administrative reasons did not justify cancellation. Directed University to reinstate and grant continuity benefits.

What did the court decide?

Quashed cancellation order and endorsement order. Directed University to reinstate petitioner as Associate Professor with continuity of service and academic benefits excluding salary arrears.

Dr. Neema Gnanadev Vs Bangalore University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.22871 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR.NEEMA GNANADEV W/O GNANADEV L AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 15^TH MAIN 19^TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.H.KANTHA RAJ, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VISHWANATHA K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARAHI CAMPUS BENGALURU – 560 056 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 16^TH CROSS SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.C.JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.STAFF/2.APP.BACKLOG/ 2018.19 BENGALURU DATED 30.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE R1 BY WHICH THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND SHE HAS BEEN RELIVED FROM HER DUTY IMMEDIATELY VIDE ANNX-K AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned order bearing No.STAFF/2:APP-Backlog/2018-19 dated 30.01.2023 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-K, wherein appointment of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Centre for Rural Development Studies, Bengaluru University, Bengaluru is cancelled for want of Validity Certificate and consequently, representation submitted by the petitioner requesting for re-instatement on the ground that the

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶24

Committee has issued a Validity Certificate is declined and endorsement dated 16.08.2023 is issued as per Annexure-N. The petitioner has also sought mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to re-instate the petitioner into service as an Associate Professor and to declare probationary period of petitioner w.e.f. 11.01.2022.

¶25

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 – State and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶27

The petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Centre for Rural Development Studies, Bengaluru University, Bengaluru against the post reserved for ST Category. In the appointment order issued by respondent No.1 – University, the petitioner was called upon to furnish Validity Certificate to substantiate her appointment for the post reserved under ST Category. Respondent No.1 –

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶30

University proceeded to cancel the appointment on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure Validity Certificate as per Annexure-K.

¶31

The petitioner having furnished documents before the Committee was able to secure Validity Certificate, which was communicated by Committee to respondent No.1 – University. Respondent No.1 – University, while considering representation submitted by the petitioner, has issued impugned endorsement dated 16.08.2023 as per Annexure-N thereby rejecting representation on the ground that there is no provision to re-instate the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor in respondent No.1 – University.

¶32

Though there is some laxness on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing documents before the Committee to verify the documents for issuing Validity Certificate, which consequently led to cancellation of petitioner’s appointment to the post of Associate

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶35

Professor, this Court is of the view that respondent No.1 – University was required to take lenient view, while considering representation submitted by the petitioner. If the Committee has issued a Validity Certificate bearing in mind that the petitioner being a women and belongs to ST Category, respondent No.1 – State could not have issued an impugned endorsement as per Annexure-N on the ground that there is no provision to re-instate into service, as it is borne out from the records that petitioner’s appointment was cancelled not on account of her ineligibility, but on the ground that she failed to secure Validity Certificate in time. The fact that Validity Certificate was not secured in time cannot in itself constitute a ground to deny an employment to an women coming depressed class. The very object of providing reservation for depressed class stands deprived.

¶36

Therefore, this Court is of the view that in

¶37

absence of any specific provision, there is no impediment for respondent No.1 to re-consider representation as the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶40

petitioner has succeeded in securing a Validity Certificate from the competent Committee. The fact that the Validity Certificate issued by the Committee is communicated to respondent No.1 being not in dispute, I am of the view that cancellation of appointment as per Annexure-K and consequent order declining to re-instate the petitioner as per Annexure-N are not sustainable.

¶41

The cancellation of petitioner appointment

¶42

solely on the ground of non-furnishing of a validity Certificate is unjustifiable. Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and the delay in issuance of validity Certificate should be considered within the context of administrative delays or other factors beyond petitioner’s control. The refusal to reinstate the petitioner, based solely on the absence of a provision, does not align with the principles of reservation and employment opportunities for backward class, that to for a woman. The purpose of such provision is to ensure equitable opportunities for under represented groups.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶45

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to

¶46

pass the following;

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶49

(ii) The impugned order bearing No.STAFF /2:APP-b dated 30.01.2023 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-K and impugned endorsement bearing No.Staff2:E9;APT/Teaching/A.U./etc.,/2021 dated 16.08.2023 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-N are hereby quashed.

¶50

(iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to expedite any necessary administrative process and re-instate the petitioner into service as an Associate Professor in the Department of Centre for Rural Development Studies, Bengaluru University, Bengaluru without any further delay.

¶51

(iv) Respondent No.1 shall extend benefit of continuity of service with all monitory and

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:5778 WP No. 22871 of 2023

¶54

other academic benefits excluding arrears of salary.

¶55

(v) I.A.Nos.1/2024, 1/2023 and 2/2023

¶56

are also disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

NBM

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Dr. Neema Gnanadev v. Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Neema Gnanadev v. Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Antoni D Cunha @ Danny Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Subramanya Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Umeshaiah Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

V Nagaraja Vs the Managing Director

Chetan Garga Vs Smt. Deena Nagesh