Karnataka High Court
Prasanna Kumar vs Savitri on 12 December, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2023 R
C/W WA No. 200036 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO.200027 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.200036 OF 2023(S-RES)
IN W.A. NO.200027 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O SHIVASHARANAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
Digitally signed by
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
SOMANATH
PENTAPPA MITTE
...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SAVITRI
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
R/O H.NO.2-907/118/39,
BEHIND RTO, SAI NAGAR
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2023
C/W WA No. 200036 of 2023
2. VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE REGISTRAR AND MEMBER
SECRETARY BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT - 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 30.01.2023 IN WRIT
PETITION NO.200174/2018 (S-RES) AND DISMISS WRIT
PETITION NO.200174/2018 (S-RES) FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT AND ETC.,
IN W.A.NO.200036 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMARESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. SAVITRI
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2023
C/W WA No. 200036 of 2023
R/O H.NO.2-907/118/39,
BEHIND RTO, SAI NAGAR
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
2. PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O SHIVASHARNAPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
RAICHUR, R/O. RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMA L.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT - 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.200174/2018
DATED 30.01.2023 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND REJECT
THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Since these two appeals are directed against the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.200174/2018, both these appeals are heard and
disposed of by this common order.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
2. The appellant, who was respondent No.3 before
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.200174/2018, is
before this Court seeking to assail the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge.
3. For the purpose of convenience the parties shall
be referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
4. The writ petitioner approached the learned
Single Judge aggrieved of an endorsement issued by the
respondent-University declining to accept the application
filed by the writ petitioner who had responded to a
recruitment notification to fill up the post of Assistant
Professor of Physical Education. The recruitment
notification was issued on 26.02.2014 and the last date of
filing the application was 15.04.2014. However,
subsequently, one more notification was issued on
09.01.2016 and the last date for filing the application was
08.02.2016.
5. It is undisputed fact that the parties before the
Court have responded to the said recruitment notification
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for filing the
application was 08.02.2016. It is another matter that by
way of corrigendum/addendum dated 11.04.2016 one
more post of Assistant Professor of Soil and Water
Engineering was added to the previous notification which
is not in any way connected to the subject matter and
therefore, the same can be ignored. In response to the
notification dated 09.01.2016, where the last date for
filing the application was 08.02.2016, the writ petitioner
submitted an application claiming that she was awarded
Ph.D. on 11.12.2015. However, a statement was made by
the petitioner that a no objection certificate from the
parent institution would be submitted at the time of
interview. On scrutinizing the applications and completing
the recruitment process, a proceeding was drawn by the
Board of Management of the respondent-University on
29.08.2017 according approval for the appointments of
the selected candidates including the post of Assistant
Professor of Physical Education. The respondent No.3-
Sri.Prasanna Kumar was selected under the General Merit
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
Category while one Sri.Rajkumar Gurushant Karve was
selected under the Scheduled Caste Category. Feeling
aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned Single
Judge. In the writ petition, the petitioner also called in
question the order of appointment dated 04.09.2017
issued in favour of respondent No.3. It is also not disputed
that respondent No.3 took charge consequent to the order
of appointment issued on 04.09.2017.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was
contended by the writ petitioner that she was awarded
Ph.D. degree on 11.12.2015, but the convocation
certificate was issued only on 04.03.2016 and therefore
along with the application a notification dated 30.12.2015
issued by the Karnataka State Women University,
Vijayapur, was tendered by the writ petitioner. Several
judgments were relied upon by both the sides and the
learned Single Judge has bestowed his attention to the
judgments in the case of Karnataka State Seeds
Development Corporation Limited and Another Vs.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
Smt.H.L.Kaveri and Others, State of Bihar Vs. Madhu
Kant Ranjan and Another, reported in AIR Online
2021 SC 1229, Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University
of Rajasthan and Others, reported in 1993 AIR SCW
1488 and Roshni Devi and Others Vs. State of
Haryana and Others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3268.
However, the learned Single Judge accepted the
contention of the writ petitioner that since notification
dated 30.12.2015 was submitted by the writ petitioner
along with the application, the writ petitioner fulfilled the
requirement of the Recruitment Notification and the Rules
governing the recruitment process. Consequently, the writ
petition was allowed, while setting aside the appointment
of respondent No.3, with a direction to respondent No.2-
University to consider the claim of the writ petitioner,
award appropriate marks in accordance with guidelines at
Annexure-R(2)E and thereafter, pass fresh orders of
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physical
Education.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
7. Before this Court too, it is the contention of the
writ petitioner that since the writ petitioner had enclosed a
copy of the notification dated 30.12.2015 along with the
application before the last date for filing the application,
no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
8. It was also contended by the learned counsel
for the writ petitioner that the production of the
notification dated 30.12.2015 is in accordance with the
relevant Regulations of the University Grants Commission
(for short, 'UGC') namely the University Grants
Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Awards Of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009. In fact,
it was pointed out from the impugned order that the
relevant Regulations-19 and 20 have been extracted by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Learned
counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that the
production of the notification dated 30.12.2015 is in
compliance of the requirement of the Regulations of the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
UGC and the rejection of the candidature of the writ
petitioner at the hands of the respondent-University is
contrary to the established principles of law and the
requirements even in terms of the Regulations of the UGC.
9. We have perused the judgments which were
referred to by the learned Single Judge. We find that the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
undergone changes. For instance, in Ram Kumar Gijroya
Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and
Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 while placing
reliance on Pushpa Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)
reported in 2009 SCC online Delhi 281, it was held that
the decisions rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in
conformity with the position of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of
India reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 and in the
case of Valsamma Paul Vs. Cochin University reported
in (1996) 3 SCC 545, wherein this Court had held that
the object of providing reservations to the SCs/STs and
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
educationally and socially backward classes of the society
is to remove inequality in public employment, as
candidates belonging to these categories are unable to
compete with the candidates belonging to general
categories, as a result of facing centuries of oppression
and deprivation of opportunity. In that context, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who had
directed the respondent authorities that since aggrieved
candidates had submitted the OBC certificates after the
cut off date but before the date of interview, the same was
required to be accepted. However, the said decision was
referred to a larger bench in the case of Karn Singh
Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others
reported in 2020 SCC online SC 1472.
10. Subsequently, in a latest decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Divya Vs. Union of India
and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1305,
decided on 09.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
clarified the position having noticed the earlier judgments
in Ramkumar Gijroya (supra), Karn Singh Yadav,
(supra) Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander
Shekhar and Another reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 and
various other cases. It was noticed that the judgment in
the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) was rendered
by a Three Judge Bench and therefore, the said decision
would be binding on the bench comprising of two judges.
In Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), a review was sought
in respect of an earlier decision of the year 1993. The
larger bench held that the views taken by the majority
that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date
of interview even if he was not qualified by the last date
prescribed for receiving the application, is unsustainable in
law. It was held that the proposition that where
applications are called for prescribing a particular date as
the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the
candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that
date and that date alone is a well established one. A
person who acquires the prescribed qualification
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
subsequent to such prescribed date, cannot be considered
at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published
calling for applications constitutes a representation to the
public and the authority issuing it is bound by such
representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason
behind this proposition is that if it were known that
persons who obtained the qualifications after the
prescribed date but before the date of interview would be
allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed
persons could also have applied. Just because some of the
persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not
acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed
date, they could not have been treated on a preferential
basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at
the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in
fact was not doubted or disputed by the majority
judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in the case
of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra) (which was also referred to
by the learned Single Judge). The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the reasoning in the majority opinion that by
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview,
the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent
available and that such course was in furtherance of public
interest was rejected as impermissible justification.
11. Having noticed the said decision in the case of
Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) of a larger bench, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the latest decision in the case of
Divya (supra) held that UPSC was justified in prescribing
a cut off date for possession and for uploading of the
income and assets certificate in the prescribed format and
the same was in terms of the relevant rules and if any
candidate failed to submit the income and assets
certificate in terms of the said prescription, the
candidature of such person cannot be accepted by the
UPSC. The rejection of such applications was upheld at the
hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. Having regard to the said decisions, when we
consider the case on hand, it is clear that the writ
petitioner had not tendered Ph.D. certificate along with the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
application form. The other limb of the argument put forth
on behalf of the writ petitioner that production of the
notification dated 30.12.2015 along with application form
would meet the requirement having regard to the
Regulations-19 and 20 of the Regulations-2009 also
cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge had infact
extracted the relevant Regulations-19 and 20 as follows:
"19. Following the successful completion of the
evaluation process and announcements of the
award of M.Phil/Ph.D., the University shall
submit a soft copy of the M.Phil/Ph.D., thesis to
the UGC within a period of thirty days, for
hosting the same in INFLIBNET, accessible to all
Institutions/Universities.
20. Alongwith the Degree, the Degree awarding
University, Institution Deemed to be University,
College/Institution of National Importance, as
the case may be, shall issue a Provisional
Certificate certifying to the effect that the
Degree has been awarded in accordance with
the provisions to these Regulations of the UGC."
13. It is clear from the Regulations that there is no
such provision for issuance of notification as was done in
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
the case of the writ petitioner. In terms of the Regulation-
19, following the successful completion of evaluation
process and announcement of the award of Ph.D., the
University was required to submit a soft copy of the thesis
to the UGC within a period of 30 days for hosting the same
in INFLIBNET, so that it would be accessible to all
Institutions/Universities. Regulation-20 would mandate
that along with Degree, the Degree awarding University
shall issue a Provisional Certificate certifying to the effect
that the Degree has been awarded in accordance with the
provisions of the Regulations of the UGC. These two
provisions do not permit issuance of such notifications as
was tendered by the writ petitioner namely notification
dated 30.12.2015.
14. Having regard to the settled position of law, we
are of the considered opinion that since the writ petitioner
did not tender the Ph.D., certificate along with application
form before the last date i.e., 08.02.2016 and when
admittedly the Ph.D., certificate was given to the writ
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
petitioner on 04.03.2016, after the last date for filing the
application namely 08.02.2016, the non awarding of the
marks by the respondent-University for not tendering the
Ph.D., certificate cannot be faulted. For the same reason,
we are also of the opinion that the writ petition challenging
the announcement of the results of the recruitment
process and the subsequent challenge raised to the order
of appointment issued in favour of the third respondent,
could not have been allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The third respondent has taken charge after the order of
appointment dated 04.09.2017 and has been working
since then.
15. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to
allow both the writ appeals while setting aside the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.200174/2018 dated 30.01.2023.
16. At this juncture, it was submitted that following
the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the
respondent-University reconsidered the claim of the writ
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9172-DB
petitioner, awarded marks and tendered the same in a
sealed cover. Now that we have set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge, the question of opening the sealed
cover or announcing the result would not arise.
17. Accordingly, the sealed cover is opened and
closed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR/VNR
CT:VK
