Dr.Machendranath S vs Dr.Sangeeta Balram Gaikwad And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2435 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2435 Kant
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Dr.Machendranath S vs Dr.Sangeeta Balram Gaikwad And ... on 28 June, 2021

Author: S.G.Pandit And M.G.S.Kamal

                              1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE 2021

                        PRESENT
           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

            WRIT APPEAL NO.200282/2017 (S)


Between:

Dr.Machendranath,S,
Age: 44 years,
Occ: Deputy Librarian,
r/o.276, Vidyanagar Colony,
S.B.College Road,
Gulbarga-585 103.                         ... Appellant

(By Sri.Huleppa Heroor, Advocate)

And:

  1. Dr.Sangeeta Balaram Gaikwad,
     Age: 37 years,
     Occ: Lecturer,
     R/o.C/o.Dr.V.T.Kamble,
     Professor,
     Dept. of Library &
     Information Science,
     Gulbarga University,
     Gulbarga-585 106.
                                 2




   2. The State of Karnataka,
      Rep. by its Secretary,
      Dept. of Education,
      M.S.Building,
      Bengaluru-560 001.

   3. The Registrar,
      University of Agriculture
      Sciences, Raichur,
      P.B.No.329, UAS,
      Raichur-584 102.                      ... Respondents

(By Sri.B.K.Hiremath, Advocate for R-1,
      Smt.Archana Tiwari, Advocate for R-2,
      Sri.Amresh S.Roja, Advocate for R-3)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the final
order dt.29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.101700/2013 (GM-RES) and to pass all
other consequential orders as may be deemed fit necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice.

      This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, S.G.Pandit, J., delivered the following:


                        JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is filed by third

respondent in Writ Petition No.101700/2013 (GM-RES)

challenging the order dated 29.08.2017, wherein the

learned single Judge of this Court quashed the order of

appointment dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure-B) and

directed the second respondent to hold fresh interview

to the post of Deputy Librarian to the second

respondent-University.

2. Both the first respondent and the third

respondent participated in the selection process of the

second respondent-University to the post of Deputy

Librarian as per the notification dated 04.11.2011. The

qualification prescribed was:

i) A Ph.D Degree in Library Science/Information Science/ Documentation/ Archives and Manuscript keeping;

            ii)        A    Master's      degree     in   Library
      Sciences/Information          Science/Documentation

with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade of B in the UGC 7 points scale and consistently good academic record;

iii) At least 5 years of experience as Assistant Librarian in a University;

iv) Evidence of innovation in library services and organization of published work is desirable.

3. After interview, the appellant-third respondent

was appointed as Deputy Librarian. Challenging the

said appointment, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition

No.101700/2013 (GM-RES) on the ground that the

third respondent-appellant herein would not possess

the required experience. This Court under the

impugned order, held that petitioner as well as third

respondent are not eligible for the post of Deputy

Librarian as they would not qualify the experience

qualification. Hence, quashed the order of appointment

dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure-B) of the appellant-third

Respondent directing the second respondent to conduct

fresh interview for the post of Deputy Librarian.

Aggrieved by the same, third respondent is in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Amit Kumar

Deshpande for appellant, learned counsel Sri.Huleppa

Heroor for Respondent No.1 and Sri.Amresh S.Roja for

Respondent No.3-University, Smt.Archana Tiwari,

learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2.

5. The appellant had filed I.A.No.2/2017 for

production of additional documents. This Court by

order dated 20.09.2019, allowed the said I.A permitting

the appellant to produce additional documents.

6. Perusal of document-R3(15) dated 1st March

2016 issued by the University Grants Commission

permits counting of period spent on pursuing research

degree for the purpose of teaching experience. The

appellant-third respondent possessed the experience of

five years as Assistant Librarian which is indicated in

the following table:

Post held Name of Date of Date of Period of Reason Basic pay Employer Joining leaving Service For (Certirfied (years/ Leaving Copy of Months/ the pay days drawn to be enclosed) Guest VSKU- 08.08.2011 Till 05 - Asst. Bellary working months 25,000/- Librarian

Guest KSWU- 06.09.2010 30.06.2011 10 - Lecturer Bijapur months Lecturer NDC- July- April- 1 year & -

months

Lecturer NG-PU- July- Dec- 06 - College 2004 2004 Months Gulbarga

Librarian KVB- July- Feb- 02 years - Chintamani 2001 2004 & 07 Months

Librarian CMRIMS- Feb- June- Bangalore 2001 2001

7. A perusal of the above table would indicate that

the appellant-third respondent has totally 72 months of

teaching experience including the period of pursuing

research degree. Therefore, the learned single Judge

was not right in holding that the third respondent did

not possess the requisite qualification of experience.

Moreover, the petitioner-first respondent in this appeal