Smt Ramya H N vs The University Of Agricultural ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4924 Kant

                         -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

         WRIT APPEAL NO.508 OF 2023(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

     SMT. RAMYA H.N.
     W/O SANTHOSH M.P.
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
     BUILDING, IST FLOOR
     'KRUTHIKA ARCADE'
     HOLENARSIPURA ROAD
     HASSAN - 573 201.

                                       ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGAWAT, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
       REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
       REGISTRAR OFFICE GKVK
       BENGALURU - 560 065.

2.     VICE CHANCELLOR/CHAIRMAN OF
       SELECTION COMMITTEE
       UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
       GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.

3.     THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
       UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
       GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.
                          -2-



4.   MRS. PRAKRUTHI N RAJGANGADKAR
     W/O SATHISH
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     R/AT No.102, 11TH CROSS
     ZAINABHI MANSION
     LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK
     NEXT TO SBI BANK
     CBI ROAD, GANGANAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 032.

5.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. L.V. APARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY SR. ADVOCATE FOR
   SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
   SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R5)
                         ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE   JUDGE   OF   THE   HON'BLE   COURT   IN   WP
NO.9340/2013 DATED:18/04/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL.


     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-


                         JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed against the order dated

18.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.9340/2013 (S-RES) by

which learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ

petition quashed the order dated 28.09.2012

appointing the appellant herein to the post of Assistant

Professor reserved for women (GM) in the Department

of Agricultural Engineering and further directed the

respondent No.1- University to recalculate the marks

produced at Annexure-D in terms of notification dated

06.03.2012 which is produced at Annexure-B and the

guidelines produced at Annexure-C within an outer

limit of three months from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order.

2. The above writ petition is filed by

Mrs. Prakruthi N. Rajgangadkar- the respondent No.4

in this appeal contending inter alia that the

respondent-University had issued a Notification dated

06.03.2012 seeking to fill up various posts in different

departments including four posts of Assistant Professor

in the Department of Agricultural Engineering as per

notification at Annexure-B to the writ petition. That the

respondent-University had issued guidelines and

procedure dated 03.12.2007 for selection to the post of

Professor/Teacher as per Annexure-C to the writ

petition. That the respondent No.4/writ petitioner and

the appellant/respondent No.4 had appeared for the

interview and as per the score card produced at

Annexure-D to the writ petition, respondent No.4/writ

petitioner had scored 41.90 marks while

appellant/respondent No.4 herein had scored 43.22

marks.

3. The contention of the respondent No.4/writ

petitioner is that the assessment and recording of the

score by the Selection Committee was improper and

erroneous. The respondent No.4/writ petitioner had

also made a representation to the respondent -

University which was not considered, constraining her

to file the above writ petition.

4. Learned Single Judge on consideration of

the rival contentions of the parties and on going

through the records came to the conclusion that the

committee had ignored relevant documents made

available by the respondent No.4/writ petitioner and

had accepted and acted upon the documents produced

by the appellant/respondent No.4 which were contrary

to the guidelines and has thus held that the awarding

of marks by the respondent -University was untenable

and did not pass the test of objectivity and

consequently allowed the writ petition by issuing

directions as noted hereinabove. Being aggrieved by

the impugned order, the appellant/respondent No.4 is

before this Court.

5. Sri. M.S.Bhagawat, learned Senior counsel

representing the counsel for the appellant apart from

reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of

appeal submitted that;

(a) assessment and awarding of marks has

been done strictly in accordance to the guidelines

provided therefor by the Selection Committee of the

respondent-University and the judicial intervention in

the matter of this nature is restricted.

(b) the appellant/respondent No.4 has been found

to be meritorious than the respondent No.4/writ

petitioner by the Selection Committee and no grounds

are made out by respondent No.4/writ petitioner

warranting interference.

(c) Drawing attention of this Court to the contents

of paragraph 14 at page 30 of the impugned order

learned Senior counsel submitted that learned Single

Judge erred at coming to the conclusion that the

respondent No.4/writ petitioner was working as full

time contract teacher at the college of Agricultural, VC

Farm, Mandya and particularly under the University of

Agricultural Sciences at Bangalore, on the basis of

document produced at Annexure-N- page 158,

inasmuch as said document is dated 16.04.2018, which

is subsequent to the date of issuance of score card

dated 02.07.2012. Thus, he submits the reasoning and

conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge is

unsustainable as the said document was not made

available by respondent No.4/writ petitioner before the

Selection Committee and that the marks allotted to the

appellant/respondent No.4 by the Selection Committee

is based on the documents furnished by the parties.

Therefore, he submits document brought subsequent

to completion of the evaluation process cannot be

made subject matter of writ petition.

(d) relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in

the case TAJVIR SINGH SOLI AND OTHERS VS.

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR disposed of on

28.03.2023, learned Senior counsel for the appellant

submitted that appellant/respondent No.4 having

submitted herself to the process of interview without

any demur or protest cannot challenge on the basis of

difference in the marks awarded by the Selection

Committee and that the High Court in exercise of its

power under judicial review cannot sit in judgment

over the award of marks by Selection Committee. That

merely because, respondent No.4/writ petitioner had

made an application she would not get any vested right

to be selected. That a duly constituted Selection

Committee is the expert body in the matter and the

courts ordinarily shall not reverse the same as it does

not have the expertise.

(e) as regards the experience prescribed for the

post, learned Senior counsel submitted that the

appellant/respondent No.4 has acquired all necessary

qualification while respondent No.4/writ petitioner did

not have necessary qualification as she had not passed

through NET examination, which is an additional

qualification. That the respondent No.4/writ petitioner

not having challenged the notification or the selection

process cannot seek relief as sought in the writ

petition.

(f) the appellant/respondent No.4 had already

served over 10 years as a Assistant Professor and has

even been promoted to the next cadre and has also

completed 30 years of age. In the said circumstances,

questioning the appointment and quashing the same at

this belated stage is impermissible, more particularly

when the appellant had no role in the process of

selection.

Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal and

setting aside the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

6. Sri. I.Taranath Poojary, learned Senior

counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifying the

order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted

that;

(a) the document produced at Annexure-N dated

16.04.2018 is only a certificate of past service

rendered by respondent No.4/writ petitioner and that

the same has to be read along with Annexures-F1 and

F2 which are the certificates dated 18.11.2009 and

01.02.2011 pertaining to the relevant period.

(b) the Selection Committee not having taken

into consideration these material documents has

awarded lesser marks to the respondent No.4/writ

petitioner; that the selection committee has taken into

consideration of the documents furnished by the

- 10 -

appellant/respondent No.4 which do not meet the

requirement of the guidelines and without taking these

aspects of the matter the Selection Committee has

awarded higher marks to the appellant/respondent

No.4.

(c) that the requirement of passing NET has

been exempted to the candidates who had done

M.Tech (Agricultural Engineering) during the period

prior to the year 2009 by the respondent -University in

terms of a corrigendum dated 05.02.2010. Therefore,

he submits that respondent No.4/writ petitioner has

been discriminated in not considering her eligibility.

(d) that referring to a comparative Marks Chart

produced along with synopsis dated 07.06.2013,

learned Senior counsel submitted that had the

selection committee taken into consideration the

documents produced at Annexures-F1 and F4, the

respondent No.4/writ petitioner would have been

allotted 3.88 marks instead of 2.50 marks which would

- 11 -

have aggregated into 43.28 instead of 41.90 as

allotted in the score card.

(e) that even without deducting any marks

which have been allotted to appellant/respondent No.4

by the Selection Committee, that too, based on the

material contrary to the guidelines, still the respondent

No.4/writ petitioner would score higher than the

appellant/respondent No.4. Thus, he submits the

learned Single Judge having taken note of all these

aspect of the matter has rightly come to the conclusion

in allowing the writ petition and the

appellant/respondent No.4 has made out no grounds

warranting interference.

Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the

issuance of notification by the respondent-University

calling for applications to fill-up various posts including

- 12 -

posts of Assistant Professor. It is necessary to refer to

qualification and score card for the direct recruitment

as provided and guidelines for allotment of marks as

per Annexure-C. Paragraph 4 of the said guidelines

referring to experience in Teaching /Research

/Extension for the purpose of allotment of marks is

relevant, which reads as under;

 4.            Experience                in   Maximum           marks
 Teaching/Research/           Extension:      allotted=15
 Experience     in     the     cadre     of   i) 0.125 marks for each
 Instructor/Research                          month of service in
 Assistant/Extension      Guide/Technical     teaching/      research/
 Assistant/Scientific   Assistant    /Farm    extension
 Manager/ temporary appointment as            Note: To be supported
 Research             Associate/Extension     by authorized document
 worker/Full       time       SRF/Project     issued by the competent
 Scientist/Specialist        in         an    authorities.
 University/College/          Government
 Departments/                     research

Organization/Boards/Corporations/ ICAR Institute/Similar Institutes like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, ICRISAT etc., /Krishi Vignana Kendras/Statutory bodies /International organizations/ Nationalized Banks/ Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working on Government projects

9. Thus, reading of the above portion of

guidelines makes it clear that the maximum marks to

be allotted under the heading "Experience" to a

candidate is 15, that is 0.125 marks for each month of

service in Teaching/Research/Extension.

- 13 -

10. In the score card produced at Annexure-D,

respondent No.4/writ petitioner has been awarded 2.50

marks, while, the appellant /respondent No.4 has been

allotted 6.25 marks under the column experience in

Teaching/Research/Extension. In the statement of

objections filed by the University at paragraph 8 details

of the calculation made by the Committee are

provided, wherein the Selection committee has taken

total of 20 months of working experience of respondent

No.4/writ petitioner and has allotted 2.50 marks. As

rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for

respondent No.4/writ petitioner if documents at

Annexures-F1 and F4 were taken into consideration in

proper perspective a total number of months of

experience would have been 31 months instead of 20

months, thereby the total marks to be allotted would

have been 3.88 marks. This would have taken the tally

of marks of the respondent No.4/writ petitioner to a

total of marks 43.28 instead of 41.90. The appellant

/respondent No.4 has been allotted aggregate of 43.22

marks which is still lesser than the marks which the

- 14 -

respondent No.4/writ petitioner was entitled to. It is

also seen that the Selection committee has allotted

0.50 marks to the appellant/respondent No.4 under

the heading "Additional Qualification as Post -Doctoral

experience" to which there is no plausible explanation.

11. Though it is contended by respondent

No.4/writ petitioner that the appellant/respondent No.4

did not possess required qualification as per guidelines

-para 4 extracted hereinabove, inasmuch as the

documents produced by her to show her experience

refers to she working as a Store Manager in Namdhari

Agro Fresh Pvt. Ltd., Langford Town, Agro Fresh

Branch, and even if one ignores allotment of marks

under the said heading as noted above, the respondent

No.4/writ petitioner is still ahead of appellant/

respondent No.4.

12. As regards the contention of the learned

Senior counsel for the appellant, respondent No.4/writ

petitioner did not possess required qualification of

getting through NET, it is necessary to refer to the

- 15 -

notification produced at Annexure-B, wherein at page

64 following is mentioned;

"2. Candidates should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) in the concerned subject for Assistant Professor Post conducted by ASRB/ UGC/CSIR or a similar test accredited by ICAR/ICMR/NCERT/UGC/CSIR i.e.,

(a) For agriculture/ animal husbandry/veterinary /Fisheries disciplines , ASRB/ ICAR/NET in the concerned subject is prescribed.

(b) For Humanities, languages etc., UGC NET is prescribed

(c) For pure science CSIR/ NET is prescribed.

Note:

1. In exceptional cases where ASRB (ICAR) is not conducting the NET in certain disciplines, the candidates should pass NET in the disciplines approved by the academic council in the related subjects: as per notification No. AO/RT/Quali.Asst. Prof./Direct Rectt./2008-09 dated 18.11.2008 and notification No.AO/RT/Quali.Asst. Prof./Direct Rectt./2008- 09 dated:03.11.2008 and as approved by the Board of Management in its 337th II Adjourned Emergent Meeting held on 06.08.2010 and confirmed in Minutes dated:25.11.2010 Corrigendum No.AO/PS/AC -167/21/Item- 9/Congndm/2010 dated:05.02.2010 available on UAS-B Website:www.uasbangalore.edu.in

2. ...........

13. Corrigendum referred to in the aforesaid

note is at Annexure-L, page 153 of the appeal memo,

wherein at page 154, Sl.No.5, in the remarks column

it is stated that "NET is exempted for candidates who

have done M.Sc (Ag) Engg./M.Tech(Ag.Engg.) during

- 16 -

or prior to 2009 as the revised syllabus as per 4th

Dean's committee has been introduced in 2007".

Annexure-M at page 157 is a document produced with

regard to admission of respondent No.4/writ petitioner

to the degree of Master of Technology (Agricultural

Engineering) on 20.06.2009.

14. Thus, referring to the above material,

learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.4/writ

petitioner submitted that requirement of NET is

exempted as far as respondent No.4/writ petitioner is

concerned, as she had completed her Degree in Master

of Technology in Agricultural Engineering during or

prior to 2009.

15. Learned Single Judge having taken note of

the aforesaid aspects of the matter has come to the

conclusion that the Selection committee erred in

awarding the marks without taking these aspects of

the matter and accordingly allowed the writ petition.

16. We are of the considered view that the

reasoning and finding of the learned Single Judge is

- 17 -

based on the material documents produced by the

parties. As rightly concluded by learned Single Judge,

Selection committee constituted by the respondent-

University, has committed error in not taking into

consideration the documents produced by respondent

No.4/writ petitioner in support of her claim regarding

experience as provided under guideline No.4.

17. As regards the contention of prejudice that

would be caused to the appellant/respondent No.4 in

the event of confirming the order of the learned Single

Judge, it is necessary to note that the writ petition was

filed in the year 2013. While admitting the writ petition

on 20.07.2013, this Court had passed order that "all

further proceedings of the respondents will be subject

to further orders and disposal of this petition". Thus,

the appellant/respondent No.4 is well aware of her

appointment being subject to outcome of the writ

proceedings. The appellant/respondent No.4 cannot be

heard to say to the contrary.

- 18 -

18. In our considered opinion, there is no error

or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single

Judge and no grounds are made out by the

appellant/respondent No.4 warranting interference.

Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU