Karnataka High Court
Sri Satish Kumar M vs Sri Prashanth P A on 23 June, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. NO.4896 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. SATISH KUMAR .M
S/O MURARI P
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT C/O. THAMANNA S
OPP. TO KEB KOTHATHI
MANDYA-571 402.
AND ALSO UNDER THE ORDERS OF
APPOINTMENT AT PES COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, MANDYA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. BHADRINATH R, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. PRASHANTH P.A.
S/O ANANTHASWAMY M
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
AT PRESENT WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
AT SAI VIDYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
RAJANAKUNTE
2
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 003.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (TECHNICAL)
M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
MANDYA-571 401.
5. THE PRINCIPAL
PES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
MANDYA-571 401.
6. THE REGISTRAR
VISVESVRAYA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
INAM SANGAM, BELGAUM-590018.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2
SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R4 & R5
SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADV., FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10/7/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
3669/2015.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal takes an exception to an
order dated 10.07.2017, by which writ petition
preferred by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the petitioner' for short) has been allowed and the
orders dated 29.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 by which
appellant was appointed to the post of Associate
Professor in PES College of Engineering (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Institution' for short) has been
quashed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the
appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are
stated infra.
2. On 21.11.2012, Principal of the Institution
issued a notification inviting applications for one post
of Associate Professor in Chemistry in General Merit
category. As per the notification, on or before
27.12.2012, the applications along with necessary
documents duly attested, should be submitted. In
respect of the post in question, the qualification and
service experience was required as per revised All
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Rules
and Cadre and Recruitment Rules, Karnataka
Government.
3. The Government order dated 31.01.2010
which prescribes the qualification for the post in
question.
Assistant By direct For direct recruitment
Professor recruitment (1) Must possess Ph.D
Engineering Degree with the first
College (Non- class in the Master's
Engineering Degree level in the
subjects) appropriate subjects
(Rs.12,000-
18,300) (AICTE) Must have put in five
years experience in
teaching in an
institution recognized
by university
established by law
level of lecturer
And must not have
attained the age of
forty five years.
4. The appellant as well as the petitioner and
three other candidates submitted their applications
along with necessary documents. The Selection
committee interviewed the candidates on 05.02.2013
and made a recommendation for appointment of the
appellant on the post of Associate Professor in
Chemistry. The Institution thereafter sought approval
of the Government for appointment of the appellant,
which was granted on 29.12.2014. The appellant by
an order dated 31.12.2014 was appointed on the post
of Associate Professor in Chemistry.
5. The appointment of the appellant was
assailed in a writ petition by respondent No1. The
Learned Single Judge by an order dated 10.07.2017
inter alia held that as per the clarification dated
11.11.2010 issued by Vishveshvarayya Technological
University (VTU), biochemistry is not a relevant
subject for chemistry. It was further held that as per
the Government Order, a candidate should have five
years of teaching experience in an institution
recognized by the University established by law. It was
therefore, held that the appellant did not have five
years of requisite experience as he had taught in Pre
University College for a period of one year out of the
five years. Thus, the Learned Single Judge concluded
that the appellant did not have the requisite
qualification for the post. Therefore, the orders dated
29.12.2014 issued by State Government according
approval to the selection of appellant and the order of
appointment of the appellant dated 31.12.2014 were
quashed and the institution was directed to seek
approval of the State Government for appointment of
respondent No.1 to the post of Associate Professor. It
was further directed that in case, approval is granted,
respondent No.1 shall be appointed to the said post
forthwith.
6. It is not in dispute that during pendency of
this appeal, the approval to appointment of
respondent No.1 has been granted and respondent
No.1 has been appointed on the post in question.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submitted that even if the teaching experience of the
appellant in Pre- University College is excluded, then
also the appellant had the requisite teaching
experience of five years. While inviting the attention of
this court to the affidavit filed by the Registrar of VTU,
it is contended that the University does not have any
authority or power to prescribe educational
qualification in respect of appointment of teaching
and non teaching staff, in affiliated colleges, which are
exclusively under the control of State Government.
Alternatively, it is contended that determination of
eligibility criteria/condition are essentially in the
realm of policy and the scope of judicial review is
extremely limited. It is contended that the educational
qualification of the appellant was examined by the
selection committee and the same was accepted by
the employer and therefore, no interference was called
for in exercise of powers of judicial review. In support
of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
'B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA
VS. DR.R.VENKATASUBBAIAH AND OTHERS',
(2008) 14 SCC 306 and 'ANAND YADAV AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS', (2021) 12 SCC 390.
8. On the other hand, Learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has submitted that biochemistry is
not an appropriate subject for Master Degree Level in
Chemistry. It is also urged that the appellant did not
annex the documents indicating that he had five years
teaching experience along with his application which
was submitted pursuant to recruitment notification.
It is contended that the document relating to teaching
experience in Bharathi College of Pharmacy was
submitted subsequently after the cut off date. It is
contended that Learned Single Judge therefore, has
rightly set aside the appointment of the appellant. In
support of his submissions, reliance has been placed
on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'GANAPATH
SINGH GAANGARAM SINGH RAJPUR VS.
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY', (2014) 3 SCC 767.
9. In pursuance of the direction issued on
16.06.2023, the counsel for institution has produced
the record and has submitted that the appellant is
eligible for appointment to the post in question.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has
supported the case of the appellant and has
submitted that the appellant meets the eligibility
criteria fixed by notification dated 31.01.2010.
10. We have considered the rival submissions
made by Learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises
for consideration in this appeal is whether the
appellant meets the eligibility criteria prescribed in
the notification dated 31.01.2010 for the appointment
to the post of Associate Professor. It is not in dispute
that the post of Assistant Professor has not been
designated as Associate Professor and notification
dated 31.01.2010 prescribes the eligibility criteria for
the post in question.
11. Before proceeding further, we may advert to
the well settled legal principles with regard to scope of
judicial review with regard to eligibility conditions in
respect of appointment to teaching post. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VS.
C.D.GOVINDA RAO', AIR 1965 SC 491 has held that
when a recommendation made by an educational
institution for appointment to the institution are made
before the courts, namely the courts should be slow to
interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in
the absence of any allegation about malafides. The
recommendation made by an expert body should not
likely be interfered with. In academic matters, unless
there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the
regulation of the notification issued, the court shall
keep their hands off since, those issues fall within the
domain of experts. The aforesaid decision was referred
to with approval in 'B.C.MYLARAPPA ALIAS
DR.CHIKKAMYLARAPPA supra, and 'UNIVERSITY
GRANTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER VS. NEHA
ANIL BOBDE', (2013) 10 SCC 519 and 'UNION OF
INDIA VS. RAVINDER KUMAR', (2015) 12 SCC 291.
12. It is equally well settled legal proposition
that a candidate while applying for a post should have
the requisite eligibility qualification the date fixed for
such purpose. A candidate has to produce necessary
certificates, degrees or mark sheets to establish that
he possesses the requisite qualification. It is settled in
law that depending on the facts of the case there can
be some relaxation in the matter of submission of
proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid
principles as it pertains in the domain of procedure.
[See: 'DOLLY CHHANDA VS. CHAIRMAN, JEE AND
OTHERS', (2005) 9 SCC 779].
13. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled
legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case
in hand. The eligibility condition which are required to
be fulfilled for the selection to the post of Associate
Professor are firstly, a candidate should have five
years teaching experience in an institution recognized
by University and secondly, that he should have a
Ph.D Degree with first class in Master Degree Level in
appropriate subject.
14. The particulars of teaching experience of the
appellant are extracted below for the facility of
reference:
Name of Date of Date of Designation Duration Excluding Including
the Joining Relieving of in Years PHD (Part PHD Full
Employer Employment Time) time PHD
and Research Research
Address Experiences Experience
University Guest
01.09.2000 15.01.2001 4 Months
of Mysore Lecturer
Bharathi
College of Part time 2 years 9
01.07.1999 25.04.2002
Pharmacy, lecturer months
KM Doddi
20.04.2000
Date of Part time PhD
PhD 29.04.2002 2 years
Joining Candidate
Research
PhD
University
of Mysore 2 years
Full Time
11 35 months
30.04.2002 31.03.2005 PhD
months
Utah State Postdoctoral
1 years 3
University, 28.04.2005 31.07.2006 Research 15 months 15 months
months
USA Associate
Brandeis Postdoctoral
University, 01.08.2006 30.04.2007 Research 8 months 8 months 8 months
USA Associate
Mayo
School of
Graduate Postdoctoral 1 years
Medical 01.05.2007 19.03.2009 Research 10 22 months 22 months
Education Associate months
(Mayo
Clinic) USA
The Agency
of Science
Technology Postdoctoral
and 06.07.2009 15.01.2010 Research 6 months 6 months 6 months
Research Fellow
(ASTAR)
Singapore
Vidya
Vikas
Institute of 27.12.2012
Associate 2 years
Engineering application
08.02.2010 Professor of 10 34 months 34 months
& last date
Chemistry months
Technology PESCE
- VTU
affiliated
Total experience in Months 85 months 120 months
Dr.Satish Kumar M Total Experience in years 7 years 10 years
Thus, from the perusal of aforesaid particulars,
it is evident that the appellant had requisite teaching
experience of five years even without taking into
account his teaching experience in Pre University
College. Thus, we need not examine the issue with
regard to validity of teaching experience of the
appellant in Pre University College. The aforesaid
teaching experience has not been disputed by the
State Government or by the Institution. The only
objection urged on behalf of respondent No.1 is that
the document pertaining to teaching experience in
Bharathi College of Pharmacy was furnished by the
appellant beyond the cut off date of submission of
final documents.
15. It is relevant to notice that the appellant
had initially annexed the document with regard to his
teaching experience in Pre University College,
however, an objection was raised by the State
Government with regard to his teaching experience
pursuant to which, the appellant furnished the
certificate with regard to his teaching experience in
Bharathi College of Pharmacy. The appellant had
acquired the aforesaid teaching experience prior to
21.11.2022 i.e., prior to issuance of employment
notification. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the
case, we find that the appellant was justified in
submitting the certificate with regard to his teaching
experience subsequently.
16. The other issue involved in this appeal is
whether biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master
Degree in Chemistry. The selection committee, a
committee which is an expert body has held that
biochemistry is a relevant subject for Master Degree in
Chemistry. There are no allegation of malafide made
against the members of the selection committee.
Therefore, this court in exercise of powers of judicial
review cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by
the selection committee, which is a body of experts
and hold otherwise.
17. In view of preceding analysis and in view of
our conclusion that appellant fulfils the criteria as
prescribed in the notification dated 30.01.2010, it is
not necessary for us to advert to the contention raised
by respondent No.1 that Vishveshvarayya
Technological University was competent to decide on
the question of qualification for the post in question
and the affidavit filed on its behalf in this appeal
cannot be relied upon.
In the result, the order dated 10.07.2017 passed
by Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3669/2015 is set
aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is
dismissed.
Needless to state that the appellant shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
