Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jyoti Shivalingappa ... vs The Vice Chancellor on 12 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 100610 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 100610 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JYOTI SHIVALINGAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
PHYSICS, KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
DHARWAD.
2. DR. SMT. GEETA NANAPPA CHAVAN,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
PHYSICS, KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
DHARWAD.
3. DR. SMT. NIRUPAMA J .M.,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
PHYSICS, KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
Digitally
signed by DHARWAD.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: High
4. SRI. HARSHA DEVARAJ NEELGUND,
Court of
S Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
Date:
2023.06.16
13:25:57
ZOOLOGY, KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
+0530 DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S B HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
KARNATAK UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD,
EX-OFFICIO, THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAK UNIVERSITY SYNDICATE,
KARNATAK UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD.
-2-
WP No. 100610 of 2022
2. THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAK UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S S BETURMATH & SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUAHSING
THE IMPUGNED SYNDICATE RESOLUTION/DECISION PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 DATED 04.01.2022 IN NO.KU-
SYNDICATE/PROCEEDINGS-15/2021-2022/A-33 A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-AH & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FUTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioners herein who are working as
assistant professors in respondent-University have
approached this Court in the instant writ petition seeking
for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari,
quashing the impugned Syndicate
resolution/decision passed by the Respondent
1 and 2 dated 04.01.2022 in No.KU-
Syndicate/Proceedings-15/2021-2022/a-33 a
copy of which is produced as per Annexure-
AH.
ii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold the
WP No. 100610 of 2022
appointments of the Petitioners are valid and
as per the UGC Regulations, 2006 and are
entitled to all consequential benefits flowing
there from.
iii) Any other appropriate writ/order or direction
as deemed fit and proper be awarded.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the material on record.
3. The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in
the 1st respondent-University, pursuant to the
advertisement, which was published in the year 2007.
Their services were later confirmed and they were also
promoted to higher posts and they are presently working
as assistant professors. On the basis of the government
order Anenxure-R1B dated 24.12.2009, which provided
that as from 11.07.2009, the teaching staff who have not
acquired qualification prescribed by the UGC are not
entitled for availing the benefit of UGC revised scheme
unless they acquire NET/SLET/Ph.D. through course work
and that no M.Phil shall be recognized thereafter until then
they shall continue to be in the pre-revised UGC scale or in
WP No. 100610 of 2022
the State pay scale, as the case may be. On the ground
that the petitioners who were holding the decree of M.Phil
were appointed to their respective posts in the year 2011,
the syndicate of respondent Nos.1 and 2 had issued
impugned resolution/decision dated 04.01.2022, for
withdrawing the UGC pay scale paid to the petitioners and
also to take steps for recovery of the excess amount paid
to them. Challenging the said decision dated 04.01.2022
vide Annexure-Ah, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
identical question has been decided by this Court in WA
100096/2019 disposed of on 11.12.2019 and it has been
held that the amended regulations of the UGC have come
into force with effect from 11.07.2009, whereas the
selection was made pursuant to notification/advertisement
issued prior to amendment and since the amendment is
prospective in nature, the same would not be applicable to
the candidates, who were appointed pursuant to
notification/advertisement, which was issued prior to the
WP No. 100610 of 2022
amendment coming into force. He submits that having
regard to the judgment passed by this Court in WA
No.100096/2019, the impugned decision cannot be
sustained.
5. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 submits that the decision at Annexure-Ah is
not a recommendation and no decision has been made on
the same and the writ appeal is premature. He submits
that in view of the audit report based on the notification
issued by the government in the year 2009, the syndicate
of respondents have taken a decision and therefore it
cannot be said to be bad in law. However he does not
dispute the fact that the petitioners were appointed
pursuant to notification/ advertisement that was issued by
respondent-University in the year 2007.
6. In writ appeal No.100096/2019, the
appointment was made pursuant to
notification/advertisement dated 01.01.2009 and taking
into consideration that the UGC regulations was amended
WP No. 100610 of 2022
with effect from 11.07.2009, though the appointment was
subsequent to the date of amendment coming into force,
the Division Bench of this Court held that the same cannot
be made applicable to the employees whose appointment
was pursuant to a notification, which was issued prior to
the amendment coming into force. Even in the present
case, the advertisement as per Annexure-A was issued on
04.10.2007 and appointment was made in the year 2011-
12. Though the appointment are made subsequent to the
amendment to the UGC regulations which has come into
force with effect from 11.07.2009 and Government Order
which was issued on 24.12.2009, the fact remains that the
appointments were made pursuant to the
notification/advertisement at Annexure-A dated
04.10.2007 and re-advertisement on 27.09.2008, which is
prior to the amendment coming into force in the year
2009.
7. Under these circumstances, I am of the view
that in view of the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal
WP No. 100610 of 2022
No.100096/2019, the decision at Annexure-Ah dated
04.01.2022 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2, cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Wit petition is partly allowed.
The impugned decision at Annexure-Ah dated
04.01.2022 issued by the syndicate of respondent Nos.1
and 2 is quashed.
Since the decision at Annexure-Ah is only a
recommendation, the question of issuing writ of
mandamus as sought for by the petitioner, does arise for
consideration.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that having regard to the pendency of this writ
petition, promotion of the petitioners is withheld. It is
needless to state that if the petitioners are otherwise
WP No. 100610 of 2022
eligible for promotion, respondents shall consider their
case in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
