Dr Kushala B C vs Rani Chennamma University
2021 Latest Caselaw 3243 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                            BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

          WRIT PETITION NO. 836/2014 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

Dr. Kushala B.C.,
S/o. Channaiah
Aged about 46 years
Permanent resident of
Baraguru Village,
Doddamagge Post,
Arakalagud Taluk
Hassan District, PIN 573 102
                                               ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Praveen P. Tarikar, Advocate)


AND:

1.     Rani Chennamma University
       Vidya Sangama, P.B.N.H.4
       Belgavi 591 156, Karnataka
       Represented by its Registrar

2.     Dr. Maitreyini G. Gadigeppa Goudar
       Assistant Director
       Prasaranga, Rani Chennamma University
       Vidya Sangama, P.B.N.H.4
       Belgavi 591 156, Karnataka
                                                      W.P.No.836/2014

                                 2



3.    The Special Officer
      Recruitment Cell, V. C. Secretariat
      Rani Chennamma University
      Vidya Sangama, P.B.N.H.4
      Belgavi 591 156, Karnataka
                                                  ... Respondents
(By Sri. Anoop G. Deshpande, Advocate for R1;
    Sri. S. M. Kalwad, Advocate for R2; R3 - served)
                               ---

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or certiorari or any
other order or direction quashing the order dated 27.08.2013
bearing No.RCU/EST/E1/2012-13/03.10.2012-3239/3419 vide
Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1 appointing respondent
No.2 as Assistant Professor in Kannada under the category of
General Merit.

      This petition coming on for Final Hearing this day, the
Court made the following:


                             ORDER

The petitioner who had made an application

seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Professor

in Kannada subject, in the 1 s t respondent University,

pursuant to the notification dated 03.10.2012 vide

Annexure-B and the Corrigendum-II dated 04.04.2013

vide Annexure-C, has approached this Court with a

prayer to quash the order dated 27.08.2013 bearing

No.RCU/EST/E1/2012-13/03.10.2012-3239/3419, vide W.P.No.836/2014

Annexure-A, issued by respondent No.1, appointing

respondent No.2 to the post of Assistant Professor in

Kannada, under the General Merit-Woman quota.

2. The brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are:

The 1st respondent University had called for

applications from the eligible candidates who possess

the minimum requisite eligibility as per the UGC

Regulations for the purpose of filling up the post of

Assistant Professor in Kannada subject. Initially, vide

Annexure-B notification dated 03.10.2012, the

University had reserved one post available for General

Merit-Woman candidate and subsequently, by issuing

corrigendum-II on 04.04.2013, the University had

called for applications to fill up three posts of Assistant

Professors in Kannada, reserved for General Merit -

Woman, Category-I and General Merit-Rural. The

petitioner had filed his application claiming reservation

as a candidate from General Merit - Rural quota W.P.No.836/2014

However, the University had appointed 2 n d respondent

herein, who had filed an application seeking reservation

under the General Merit - Woman quota, as against the

reservation of General Merit-Rural quota and being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached

this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, the petitioner has got all the minimum eligibility

qualifications and though the petitioner has been found

eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant

Professor in Kannada, the 2 n d respondent is appointed

under the General Merit - Rural quota, though she has

claimed reservation under General Merit - Woman

quota. He submits that the petitioner's name is found

in the waiting list vide Annexure-A, published by the 1 s t

respondent University and therefore, the University has

found that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed to

the said post. He submits that, though the petitioner

had claimed reservation under General Merit - Rural W.P.No.836/2014

Quota, without assigning any reasons, the post

reserved for General Merit - Rural quota has been

converted to General Merit - Woman quota and thereby

two candidates were appointed under General Merit -

Woman quota, as against one reserved post.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the University

submits that, since the expert Committee had found

that there were no eligible candidates in the General

Merit-Rural quota, they had decided to fill up the said

post by converting the same to General Merit-Woman

quota and such a decision taken by the Expert

Committee has been approved by the Syndicate. He

submits that, it is a settled position of law that, in the

matter of appointment of Assistant Professors and

Professors at Higher Education level, the decision taken

by the Expert Committee should not be interfered with

and the Courts should not act as Appellate Authorities.

In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the

following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

W.P.No.836/2014

i. D. Sarojakumar i Vs. R. Helen Thilakom and Others re ported in 2017(9) SC C 478,

ii. Kuldip Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh repo rte d in AIR 1997 SC 2606 and,

iii. Dal At Abas aheb Solunke Vs . B. S.

Mahajan re ported in AIR 1990 SC 434.

However, he does not dispute the fact that the

petitioner's name is found in the waiting list published

by the University.

5. I have carefully considered the rival

arguments and also perused the material on record.

6. The petitioner, pursuant to the notification

issued by the 1 s t respondent University calling upon the

applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the

post of Assistant Professor in Kannada subject, in the

University, had filed his application. Initially the

University had notified one vacancy and subsequently,

by issuing the Corrigendum-II, the University had

notified three vacancies and the posts were reserved

for General Merit-Women - 1, Category-I - 1 and W.P.No.836/2014

General Merit Rural - 1. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner had filed his application claiming reservation

under the General Merit - Rural quota. It is the case of

the petitioner that, though the 2nd respondent had

claimed reservation under Women's quota, she has

been now given appointment by converting the post

from General Merit - Rural quota. Though the

respondent University has contended that, having

regard to the fact that the Expert Committee has come

to a conclusion that there were no suitable candidates

from the Rural quota available, they had taken a

decision to fill up the post reserved under Rural quota,

by converting the same to one under General Merit -

Women quota, the said submission cannot be

appreciated for the simple reason that, the University

in the waiting list has included the name of the

petitioner and therefore, it is very clear that the

petitioner was found to be eligible to be appointed to

the post of Assistant Professor in Kannada. When the

University has found the petitioner eligible to be W.P.No.836/2014

appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Kannada

and when the petitioner was admittedly a candidate

from the Rural quota, there is no justification on the

part of the University for filing up the post reserved for

Rural quota by a candidate who had claimed reservation

under the Women quota.

7. Learned counsel for the University has

vehemently contended that, since the Expert Committee

has taken a decision, such decision should not be

interfered by this Court. I am of the view that such

contention cannot be appreciated in the facts of the

present case. It is true that, normally in cases

concerning appointment of Professors and Assistant

Professors concerning higher education, the decision

taken by the Expert Committee should not be interfered

with by the Courts of law. The courts are required to

be slow while interfering with such decision taken by

the Experts Committee. But the Courts cannot be mute W.P.No.836/2014

spectators when it is prima facie found that the Expert

Committee has erred in making the appointment.

8. In the case on hand, admittedly, the

petitioner had claimed reservation under the Rural

quota. The University has found that the petitioner is

eligible for the appointment and has included the

petitioner's name in the waiting list. It is not in

dispute that the Expert Committee has not assigned any

reasons to overlook the candidature of the petitioner.

They have simply said that, since there were no eligible

candidates from Rural quota, they have decided to fill

up the said post converting the same to General Merit -

Women quota. This decision of the Expert Committee

has to fail because the petitioner's name is found in the

waiting list and therefore, it cannot be but said, that

the petitioner was a eligible candidate, who had

claimed reservation under the General Merit (Rural)

quota. The decision of the Expert Committee cannot be W.P.No.836/2014

said to be fair and reasonable and the same also suffers

from error on the face of record.

9. The Principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the learned

counsel for the University are not disputed. However,

the same cannot be made applicable to the facts of the

present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil

Mills & Anr. reported in 2002(3) SCC 496, has held

that, when the judgments rendered are considered as

precedents, the Courts are required to take into

consideration the fact situations of the cases and

thereafterwards make the judgments applicable .

Paragraphs 19, 21 and 22 of the said judgment read as

under:

19. Co urts sho uld not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation o f the decisio n on which re liance is place d. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theo rems nor as provisio ns of the statute . These observations W.P.No.836/2014

must be re ad in the context in which the y appe ar. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To inte rpret words, phrases and pro visions of a statute , it may become necessary for j udges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to de fine. J udges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They inte rpret wo rds o f statutes, the ir words are not to be inte rpreted as statutes. In Lo ndon Graving Dock Co . Ltd. v. Horton ( 1951 AC 737 at P. 761) , Lord MacDe rmot o bserve d:

"The matte r canno t, o f course, be se ttle d merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J . as though they we re part o f an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto.

This is no t to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge ."

21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional o r differe nt fact may make a world of diffe rence between conclusio ns in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decisio n is not pro per.

W.P.No.836/2014

22. The following words of Lo rd Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus:

"Each case depe nds on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not e nough because even a single significant detail may alte r the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptatio n to decide cases (as said by Cardo zo ) by matching the colo ur of one case against the co lour of another. To de cide , there fore , on which side o f the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is no t at all decisive ."

10. I am of the considered view that the decision

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by

the learned counsel for the University would therefore

not be made applicable having regard to the facts of

the present case. Since the Expert Committee has not

assigned any reasons for over-looking the candidature

of the petitioner, who admittedly claimed reservation

under Rural quota and was found eligible by the

University to be appointed to the post of Assistant W.P.No.836/2014

Professor in Kannada, the appointment of the 2nd

respondent to the post reserved for General Merit -

Rural quota by converting the same to General Merit-

Women quota cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The order dated

27.08.2013 in RCU/EST/E1/2012-13/03.10.2012-

3239/3419 at Annexure A, appointing the 2nd

respondent to the post of Assistant Professor under

General Merit category is quashed. The 1 s t respondent

University is directed to consider the candidature of the

petitioner for filling up the said post.

Sd/-

JUDGE g ab