Allowed

Smt Sujatha M.K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2024WP/26713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by an assistant professor challenging an impugned endorsement denying the grant of UGC pay scale effective from her M.Phil admission date. The Court held the endorsement unsustainable as it ignored the university certificate showing earlier admission and quashed it, directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2022 was quashed and the respondent directed to reconsider the representation within three months.

Smt Sujatha M.K Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26713 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT. SUJATHA M.K, W/O SHESHAPPA YENMOOR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D.NO. 1-57, A.P.M.C ROAD, SALMARA CHIKKAMUDNOOR POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR, CHIKKAMUDNOOR (RURAL), CHIKMUDNOOR, PUTTURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 203. PRESENTLY WORKING AT AND AS THE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, KANNADA DEPARTMENT, GOVT. FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, VITLA, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 243. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR A.G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶15

UNNATHA SHIKSHANA SOUDHA, SHESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CORRESPONDENCE OR LETTER DATED 16.5.22 AT ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2022, vide Annexure-L, issued by respondent No.2 wherein respondent No.2 has declined to grant UGC pay scale to the petitioner from the date she was granted the degree of Masters of Philosophy (for short, 'M.Phil') in Kannada.

¶22

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶23

The respondent, vide order dated 30.09.2004, appointed the petitioner as a part time lecturer. The petitioner, who is working as an assistant professor, has applied for the course of M.Phil in the year 2007-2008. The petitioner has obtained a degree of M.Phil in Kannada

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶25

and the degree was conferred on her by the university on 09.10.2015. However, while issuing the certificate, the university has clearly notified that the petitioner is admitted to the degree with effect from 14.09.2009. The petitioner's grievance is that though she has completed her masters in 2009, the respondents are denying to grant the UGC pay scale with effect from 2009 and therefore, a detailed representation was submitted by the petitioner on 13.12.2018, calling upon respondent No.2 to rectify the mistake in granting the UGC pay scale with effect 09.10.2015 instead of 14.09.2009. Respondent No.2 by the impugned endorsement has declined to reconsider the representation.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶27

learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶28

Respondent No.1, vide order dated 17.10.2016 agreed to extend the benefit of the UGC pay scale to teachers/part time lecturers regularised in service and who have registered for M.Phil prior to 11.07.2009. The

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶31

petitioner is seeking UGC pay scale based on this Government order. The relevant portion of the

¶32

Government order reads as under:

¶33

"The State Government agrees for grant of UGC pay scale to such teachers/Part time Lecturers regularised in service and who have registered for M.Phil prior to 11.07.2009. The grant of UGC pay scale in such cases shall be from the date M.Phil Degree is awarded to them."

¶34

On perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner, it is clearly evident that the petitioner's application was approved and registered on 14.09.2009 and therefore, in terms of Government order, it is clearly evident that the petitioner got herself registered for M.Phil prior to 11.07.2009. The M.Phil degree certificate, though issued by the university on 09.10.2015, the said certificate clearly indicates that the petitioner has been held to be qualified to receive the degree of M.Phil in Kannada and is found to be admitted to that degree with effect from

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶36

14.09.2009, the day on which the petitioner passed the examination.

¶37

If the impugned endorsement is examined by

¶38

taking note of the certificate issued by the university as per Annexure-B, I am of the view that the said impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 as per AnnexureL is not sustainable. Respondent No.2 has not taken cognizance of the certificate issued by the university. Though certificate was issued on 09.10.2015, the university has clearly notified that the petitioner is qualified to receive the degree of M.Phil in Kannada and is found to be admitted to the degree with effect from 14.09.2009. Therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to consider the petitioner's representation bearing-in-mind the certificate issued by the university as per Annexure-B and also the Government order dated 17.10.2016, which

¶39

contemplates the eligibility of part time lecturers regularised in service who are entitled to seek grant of UGC pay scale. In that view of the matter, the impugned

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:6079 WP No. 26713 of 2023

¶42

endorsement is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶45

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 16.05.2022, issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-L, is hereby quashed;

¶46

iii. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner by taking note of certificate issue by the university as per Annexure-B and Government order dated 17.10.2016;

¶47

iv. Respondent No.2 shall also take note of the observation made by this Court while deciding the representation afresh;

¶48

v. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

hdk

Smt Sujatha M.K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sujatha M.K v. the State of Karnataka

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

Raju Vs the Assistant Registrar of

S H Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lingaraju. G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bharath Kumar H K Vs the Directorate of Administration

D Shashikala Vs the Secretary

Nanjundappa Vs State of Karnataka