University Of Mysore vs Dr.Pulikeshi Y Shetteppanavar
2021 Latest Caselaw 163 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                            AND

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

              W.A.No.3057 OF 2019 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

University of Mysore
Crawford Bhavan, Mysore - 570 005.
Represented by its Registrar.             ... Appellant

(By Sri. Rajendra Kumar Sungay.T.P, Advocate (VC))

AND:

1.     Dr. Pulikeshi Y. Shetteppanavar,
       Aged about 59 years,
       Occ: Deputy Director of
       Dept of Physical Education & Sports Pavilion,
       University of Mysore - 570 005.

2.     The State of Karnataka
       Department of Higher
       Education, M.S.Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
       Represented by its Principal secretary.
                                        ... Respondents

(By Smt. Vani.H, AGA for R-2,
    Sri. Shridhar Prabhu, Advocate for R-1 (VC))
                             2



      This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set Aside the
impugned order Dated 11/07/2019 passed in WP.
No.15260/2018 (S-RES) by the learned Single Judge of
this Hon'ble Court and dismiss the said writ Petition and
grant such other reliefs.

     This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

                       JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing

and to condone the delay of one day in filing the appeal,

with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is

heard finally.

2. University of Mysore has questioned the

correctness of the order dated 11.07.2019 passed in

W.P.No.15260/2018. By the said order, the learned

Single Judge followed earlier orders passed by this Court

in W.P.Nos.441-443/2017 dated 20.12.2018 and

permitted respondent No.1 herein to continue to serve in

the University until he attains the age of 62 years. Being

aggrieved, the University of Mysore has preferred this

appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant - University

contended that the Physical Education Instructors are

not 'teachers' within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the

Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity).

However, the learned Single Judge has treated them on

par with teachers and extended the age of

superannuation to be 62 years, which is not correct.

Therefore, this appeal would call for interference by this

Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, at

the outset, submitted that pursuant to the order of the

learned Single Judge, respondent No.1 has served in the

appellant - University and has retired on attaining the

age of superannuation which is 62 years. He submitted

that no purpose would be served in interfering with the

case of respondent No.1 who has retired on attaining the

age of superannuation being 62 years pursuant to the

order of the learned Single Judge.

5. By way of reply, learned counsel for appellant -

University submitted that the impugned order would

become a precedent in the case of other Physical

Education Instructors or librarians and therefore, if this

Court is to conclude the appeal on the basis that it has

been rendered infructuous, then liberty may be reserved

to the appellant - University to raise all contentions on

the issues raised in this appeal in any other appropriate

case.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted

that he had no objection for such an order being made,

so long as respondent No.1's rights are protected.

7. We note that the learned Single Judge has followed

the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.441-

443/2017 dated 20.12.2018 and has granted relief to

respondent No.1 herein in the order impugned. Pursuant

to the said order, respondent No.1 has continued beyond

60 years and until he attained the age of 62 years and

thereafter has retired from service. It is also an

admitted fact that he has been paid his salary and other

allowances during the period of his service beyond 60

years and until 62 years and therefore, he would be

entitled to all retiral benefits in accordance with law, but

the question remains, as to, whether, the definition of

'teacher' under Section 2(12) of the Act would include a

Physical Education Instructor or for that matter any

librarian or any other employee of the University.

8. But since respondent No.1 herein has been

continued in service by the University pursuant to the

order of the learned Single Judge beyond the age of 60

years and has retired from service on attaining the age

of 62 years, we do not think that this appeal is a fit case

where the contentions raised by the appellant -

University ought to be gone into. Hence, the appellant -

University is directed to settle the retiral benefits of

respondent No.1 herein within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

judgment.

9. In the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by

reserving liberty to the appellant - University as well as

to the State to raise all contentions with regard to the

age of retirement of non-teaching staff including Physical

Education Instructors, librarians, etc., in the State

Universities in any other appropriate case.

Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Since we have disposed of the appeal in the

aforesaid terms, delay of one day in filing the appeal is

ignored. I.A.No.2/2019 is accordingly disposed.

I.A.No.3/2019 is also disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE PKS