Karnataka High Court
Sri G Chidanandamurthy vs The Government Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.127 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G. CHIDANANDAMURTHY
S/O GURUMURTHY G. S.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF BOTANY
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR C.S.
S/O SACHINDANDA MURTHY C.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ZOOLOGY
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
3. SRI. CHANDRAPPA C.T.
S/O THIMMAPPA C.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF COMMERCE
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
2
4. SRI. SHASHIDHARA T.S.
S/O SADASHIVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
5. SRI. REVANNA SIDDAPPA G.R.
S/O LATE RAMANNA GALIGEKERE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
6. SRI. DAKSHINAMURTHY K.
S/O KALLESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
7. SRI. B. MARAPPA
S/O ENJARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
8. SMT. PADMAJA Y.M.
D/O MUTHANNA Y.D.
3
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF KANNADA
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
9 . SMT. SARVAMANAGALA H.G.
D/O GANGAPPA K.
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
10. SRI. NIJALINGAPPA T.B.
S/O BASAVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
11. SRI. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA M.
S/O LATE DYAVARAGIDDANNA SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR -
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
BHARATHI COLLEGE,
BHARATHI NAGAR (K.M. DODDI)
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422.
12. DR. M. SWAMY
S/O LATE MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH
4
SRI JAGADGURU CHANDRASHEKHARA
BHARTHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE
SRINGERI - 577 139
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO EDUCATION
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE
AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
UNNATHA SIKSHANA SOUDHA
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3 . THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KALIDASAMARG
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4 . THE PRINCIPAL
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE FOR WOMEN
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
5 . THE PRINCIPAL
SREE SIDDAGANGA COLLEGE OF
5
ARTS SCIENCE AND COMMERCE
B.H. ROAD
TUMKUR - 572 102.
6 . THE PRINCIPAL
BHARTHI COLLEGE
BHARATHI NAGAR (K.M.DODDI)
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422.
7 . THE PRINCIPAL
SRI JAGADGURU CHANDRASHEKHARA
BHARTHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE
SRINGERI - 577 139
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 TO R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-K1 IN NOT GRANTING ACADEMIC GRADE PAY TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT COLLEGE AND 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION FOR GRANTING OF THE SAME
INCLUDING THE SERVICES THEY HAVE RENDERED IN P.U.
COLLEGES AND ETC.
IN THIS WRIT PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are questioning
the order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure-K-1), rejecting the
claim for granting Academic Grade Pay to the petitioner
No.1 interalia sought for direction to the respondent-College
to grant Academic Grade Pay to the petitioners from the
date of their entitlement as recommended by their
respective Colleges.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the
petitioners were working as part time Lecturers in the
Composite Degree College, of respective respondent-
colleges during the Academic Year 1993-94 and 1994-95.
Thereafter, the petitioners have been absorbed into service
as per the absorption Rules, namely, Karnataka Civil
Services, (Absorption of persons working as Part Time
Lecturers in Karnataka Education Department Services)
(Department of Collegiate Education) (Special) Rules, 1996,
vide Notification issued on 12.02.2004 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). It is stated that though
the petitioners have been appointed to the Degree Colleges,
however, as the Pre-University Colleges and Degree-
Colleges were not bifurcated as on that day and there were
no sufficient work load in the Degree Colleges and as such,
these petitioners were posted to teach in Pre-University
colleges, as per the State Pay scale. It is further stated in
the writ petition that, the petitioners have acquired
requisite qualification prescribed by the UGC and therefore,
they are eligible to grant UGC Pay scale, in terms of the
circular dated 29.10.2010. The grievance of the petitioners
is that, though the petitioners were working in Pre-
University Colleges, in view of bifurcation of Pre-University
and Degree colleges, the Government had taken a decision
to treat the Lectures, who were working in PU colleges,
have been treated as Lectures in the Degree Colleges as
those Lectures have possessed necessary certificates as per
UGC guidelines. It is further stated in the writ petition that,
3rd respondent, has recommended the case of some of the
petitioners for drawing UGC pay scale, from the period they
were teaching in the PU colleges, (Annexure-K). It is further
contended that, the 3rd respondent, withdrawn the said
recommendation produced at Annexure-K by issuing
Annexure-K1 and as such, the 3rd has not forwarded the
recommendation of the petitioners and the petitioners were
not granted pay scales as sought for in the writ petition.
Hence, this writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard Sri. Janardhana G., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.S.Nagaraja learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State.
4. Sri. Janardhana G, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners contended that, the petitioners were
absorbed in the respective-Colleges for teaching at Degree
Colleges, however, they were called to teach in Pre-
University colleges, since, the colleges were composite
colleges and the petitioners were appointed by respective-
Management of the colleges, interalia, there was no
bifurcation and therefore, he contended that the petitioners
are entitled for Academic Grade Pay from the date of
extending the UGC pay scales to them instead of taking a
decision to grant, such a benefit, from the date of their re-
deployment in to the Degree Colleges. He further contended
that, as per Annexure-H, 2nd respondent has issued, grant
in the nature of UGC pay scale, to the Lectures from the
date of their entitlement and as such it was argued that,
the 2nd respondent ought to have granted, Academic Grade
Pay from the date of their entitlement as recommended by
the respective colleges instead of taking a decision to grant
from the date of their redeployment into the degree
colleges. He further emphasized that, similar lecturers, who
were drawing the UGC scales were granted benefits and as
such, they have been absorbed in the degree colleges only,
merely because for want to necessary posts, if they were
called up on to teach in the Pre-University college, in their
composite degree college, as there was no bifurcation and
as such, he contended that, the petitioners cannot be
discriminated by not granting Academic Grade Pay
excluding their services rendered during the period until
their re-deployment in degree college. Accordingly, he
sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri M. S. Nagaraj Additional
Government Advocate reiterates averments made in the
Statement of Objections. It is the specific argument of
learned Additional Government Advocate that, if a Lecturer
rendered service in a Pre-University college, prior to the
appointment in the Degree College, or equivalent grade, the
qualification prescribes by the UGC is to be noted and in
that view of the matter, as the lecturers in Pre-University
colleges receives pay from the State Government and the
lectures in Degree colleges, receives pay as per UGC pay
scales and therefore, required qualifications has to be met
by the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the
petitioner claim made in the writ petition cannot be acceded
to. In this regard, he refers to Government Order dated
24.12.2009, (Annexure-R1) and contended that, the
Government has revised the UGC pay scales in the
respective colleges under the control of Department of
higher education and in that view of the matter, he sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, I have given my anxious consideration to the reliefs
sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition. The
grievance of the petitioners that, the order dated
17.01.2019, (Annexure- K1) whereby, the respondent-
authorities rejected the claim made by the petitioner No.1,
refusing to grant Academic Grade Pay, on the ground that,
1st petitioner was absorbed from Pre-University college to
the First Grade College on 01.06.2012 and therefore, the
determinative factor for awarding benefit of Academic
Grade Pay is from the date of bifurcation of Pre-University
to the First Grade College. It is also pertinent to mention
here that, though the petitioners averred that they were
teaching in both Pre-University and First Grade College,
however, perusal of the appointment letters produced at
Annexure-B series would indicate that the petitioners have
been appointed by the respective-managements to work in
Pre-University college only and not in First Grade College.
In this regard, the G.O. Dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-C)
makes it clear that, in a Government First Grade college, or
the private aided colleges, the lecturers absorbed in the
State Pay scale on the ground that they did not possess
UGC prescribed qualification and subsequent to their
acquiring the qualification in terms of the UGC, the
Government had taken a decision to extend the benefit of
UGC subject to possessing requisite qualification namely,
NET/SLAT/Ph.D/M.Phil and such Lecturers who were
acquired the said qualification prior to 11.07.2009.
Therefore, nothing is produced by the petitioners herein
that they were appointed to teach in a First Grade College
at the inception (entry) level and further, petitioners
obtained the requisite qualification in terms of UGC
guidelines and they have been absorbed to teach in a First
Grade College. In this aspect of the matter, I do not find
any material to interfere with in the impugned order passed
by the respondent-authorities. It is also pertinent to
mention here that, the Government Order dated
24.12.2009 (Annexure-R1) makes it clear that, the State
Government has revised the UGC Pay scales of such
lecturers who were under the control of Higher Education in
the State subject to counting of past service and work load
enumerated in the said G.O. dated 24.12.2009. In the
backdrop of these aspects, the petitioners have not made
out a ground for interfere in this writ petition. Even the
perusal of Annexures-H and J, produced by the petitioners
would indicate that the petitioners have been relieved from
the Pre-University college and reported to the First Grade
College, during 2012 and in that view of the matter, the
rejection of the claim made by the respondents as per
Annexure-K1, is just and proper. It is also evident from
G.O. dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-G) that, some of the
petitioners herein were transferred from Teaching Staff of
Pre-University to the First Grade College in view of the
bifurcation of composite college, and these aspects would
disentitle the petitioners claiming the relief in this writ
petition.
7. Nextly, though there are 12 petitioners in the writ
petition, however, impugned order is passed at Annexure-
K1, is only insofar as the petitioner No.1 is concerned and
the petitioner Nos. 2 to 12 have not produced rejection of
their claim and this ground alone the writ petition required
to be dismissed. That apart, as per Annexure-G dated
30.04.2012, the cause of action to claim UGC pay scale has
arisen during 2012, however, the writ petition is of the year
2022 and on the question of delay also the writ petition
deserved to be rejected. With these observations, the writ
petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
SB
