Sri Ganapathi Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 5686 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GANAPATHI S/O JINNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE SCIENCE, NAVILE, SHIMOGA-577204.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANAPATHI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADDUR SHAH ZAFAR MARAG, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCES GANDHI KRISHI VIJNANA KENDRA, BANGALORE-560065. BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶19

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE SCIENCES, ZONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, NAVILE, SAVALANGA ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶22

SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. B.A.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; SRI. S. THYAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 28.11.2011 AND 10.10.2011 UNDER ANNEXURE-H AND J FOR PROMOTION UNDER CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCHEME-2006 FROM THE CADRE OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR TO THE CADRE OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WITH ADMISSIBLE PAY SCALE OF THE POST, FROM THE DATE OF HIS ELIGIBILITY WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL MONITORY BENEFITS.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider his representations dated 28.11.2011 and 10.10.2012 for

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶29

promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (henceforth referred to as 'CAS' for short) 2006 from the cadre of Assistant Professor to the cadre of Associate Professor with admissible pay scale from the date of his eligibility with all consequential monetary benefits.

¶30

(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Research Associate on 01.12.1997 and he reported to duty on 15.12.1997. He worked for more than 10 years continuously. When things stood thus, respondent No.4 invited applications to the post of Assistant Professor vide a notification dated 23.01.2008. The petitioner applied for the said post and taking into consideration his past service, he was appointed as an Assistant Professor vide order dated 14.10.2008. The petitioner reported to duty on 17.10.2008. He contends that

¶31

since he had served for more than 10 years as a Research Associate, his services should be counted for the purpose of seniority, pay revision and promotion. The petitioner therefore requested the respondents to consider the past service for the purpose of determination of seniority. However, he contends

¶32

that the respondents did not consider his request. The respondent No.2 then issued an order on 12.03.2010 directing

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶34

that the service of Research Associates who were appointed through a selection committee and had performed academic duties corresponding to Lecturer may be counted for the purpose of promotion as Lecturer in senior scale.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner therefore submitted representation dated 28.11.2011 requesting the respondent No.4 to regularize the past service as Research Associate. The said representation was not considered, which prompted the petitioner to submit another representation on 10.10.2012. The respondent No.4 issued a notification dated 25.04.2013 wherein it was mentioned how the previous service has to be counted for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2006. The petitioner contends that in the said notification, it was specifically mentioned that past service has to be counted in respect of a person who had worked as an ad-hoc employee or on temporary service for more than a year, provided his appointment was by a selection committee. The respondent No.2 then published a notice in November 2014 and clarified that the promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme shall be governed by the UGC Regulations from the date of eligibility and not from the date of interview.

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶37

(iii) The respondent No.5 then published a notification dated 18.11.2014 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. However, the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner for promotion under the CAS-2006 by factoring his past service. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider his representations dated 28.11.2011 and 10.10.2012.

¶38

He further contends that after the respondent No.4 was bifurcated and the respondent No.5 was established, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10.02.2024 requesting it to consider his case for counting his past service as Research Associate for the purpose of granting promotion under the CAS-2006. He therefore contends that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are liable to be directed to consider the aforesaid representations.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.52245/2019 connected with W.P.No.3445/2020 had directed a similar representation to be

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶41

considered in respect of a person who had also worked as a Research Associate and was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. He therefore contends that similar directions be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider the representations.

¶42

The petition was opposed by the respondent No.4 who contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Research Associate on temporary basis under a scheme and that his consolidated salary was paid out of the fund provided to the scheme. It is contended that the benefits given to permanent employees are not admissible to be granted to the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any other benefits than what is mentioned in the order of appointment. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 had issued a notification dated 23.01.2008 calling for eligible candidates for the appointment to the post of Professor, Assistant Professor and Associate Professor and that the petitioner applied to the post of Assistant Professor. The selection committee after following the new procedure and the process of selection, had recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment. The recommendation made by the selection committee was placed

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶44

before the Board of Regents at its 331^st meeting held on 23.08.2008, since the Board is the appointing authority. The petitioner was selected and appointed and an order of appointment dated 14.10.2008 was issued appointing him as an Assistant Professor at the respondent No.5. It is contended that by letter dated 12.03.2010 issued by the UGC, a clarification was sought by the Registrar, Jamia Milia Islamia Institution, regarding the counting of past service. The UGC has clarified that the services of the Research Associates, who were appointed through a duly constituted selection committee and who have performed academic duties corresponding to Lecturer, may be counted for the purpose of promotion as Lecturer (Senior Scale). It is contended that the petitioner is not appointed against any vacant post by following the recruitment process and that the Research Associate is not a sanctioned post but is only a post in a scheme which is terminable at any time without notice. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi case , AIR 2006 SC 1806 to contend that no regularization of contractual employees should be allowed. It is contended that following the above judgment, the State

¶45

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶46

Government issued a circular dated 25.05.2006, directing that those who have continued to work for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts should be regularized. It is contended that the petitioner was not an appointee through a direct recruitment process or through duly constituted selection committee and therefore, the representations of the petitioner dated 28.11.2011 and 10.10.2012 were not considered. It is further contended that since he was a Research Associate, which was not a post, considering him as Assistant Professor and assigning him academic duties corresponding to Lecturer does not arise. Therefore, the representation dated 10.10.2012 was considered an endorsement, and an issue was raised stating that there is no provision in the existing guidelines for counting the period of service as Research Associate for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Professor.

¶47

It is also contended that as per the government order dated 07.11.2012, 05.03.2013 and 03.12.2012 issued by the Department of Agriculture, the respondent No.4 was bifurcated and respondent No.5 was created and all teaching and non-teaching staff were transferred to the respondent

¶48

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶49

No.5. It is further contended that the respondent No.4 had issued guidelines and score-card for the promotion of teachers under the CAS-2006 and published a notification dated 25.04.2013. Since the petitioner was already transferred to the respondent No.5 he made no claim against the notification. It is further contended that as per the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure – K, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of counting of service, as the petitioner did not qualify to any of the conditions precedent mentioned in Annexure – K. With these and other contentions, respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of counting his past service as Research Associate for the purpose of promotion of CAS–2006.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that counting of past service would arise only when the petitioner is appointed against the sanctioned post and only when he is appointed through the regular selection process.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 reiterated the above contentions and supported the claim of the

¶52

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶53

respondent No.4. The learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶54

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶56

The fact that the petitioner was appointed on 15.11.1997 as a Research Associate in temporary projects is not in dispute. The petitioner has thereafter worked continuously till he was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 14.10.2008. The University Grants Commission had issued a clarification regarding the counting of past services of those employees who were appointed as Research Associates. UGC was of the opinion that those Research Associates who were appointed through a duly constituted selection committee and who had performed academic duties corresponding to a Lecturer may be counted for the purpose of promotion as Lecturer (Senior Scale). The petitioner has been reiterating his request for his past service in terms of his representation mentioned supra and that the same has not evoked any positive response. On the contrary, the respondent No.5 by a communication dated 10.02.2025, has informed the petitioner

¶57

11 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:16472 WP No. 5686 of 2018

¶59

that he is not entitled to count his past service and that an endorsement to that effect should be issued by the respondent Nos.4 and 5. It also stated that the representation of the petitioner would be considered only after disposal of this writ petition. Therefore, the respondent No.5 to whom the service of

¶60

the petitioner was now transferred, is bound to consider the grievance of the petitioner and justify the reason for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for counting his past service.

¶61

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.5 to consider the case of the petitioner for counting his past service as Research Associate and the petitioner is entitled for the said benefit. The respondent No.5 shall take all necessary steps for granting all consequential benefits. It shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶63

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri Ganapathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri Ganapathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Somesh Bairy Vs the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri. Prakash M E Vs the Commissioner

Shri Vinod Nayak Vs the Managing Director

T G Chandrashekarappa Vs Kuvempu University

Shobha C Vs Union of India

Sri. Satish B. K. Vs the Government of Karnataka