Karnataka High Court

Sri. N Jayaramappa vs Bangalore University on 28 June, 2024

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB
                                                           WA No. 304 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                           PRESENT

                          THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                              AND
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                              WRIT APPEAL No. 304 OF 2024 (S-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SRI. N. JAYARAMAPPA,
                        S/O NEELAPPA,
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                        ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
                        DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
                        UVCE, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
                        JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
                        BANGALORE-560056.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI NITHIN M., ADVOCATE FOR
                   SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by VALLI           AND:
MARIMUTHU
Location: High
Court of           1.   BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
Karnataka               JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
                        BANGALORE-560056.
                        REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,

                   2.   DR. A. S. RAVIKUMAR,
                        S/O LATE ALANA SIDDAIAH,
                        READER, UNIVERSITY VISHWESHWARAIAH COLLEGE
                        OF ENGINEERING (UVCE),
                        BENGALURU UNIVERSITY,
                        BENGALURU-560056.
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB
                                              WA No. 304 of 2024




      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.
15747/2019 (S-RES) DATED 29.01.2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN, AS
UNDER:


     CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
               N. V. ANJARIA
               and
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

This intra court appeal by the original writ petitioner in Writ

Petition No.15747/2019 against the order dated 29.01.2024.

2. The petitioner-appellant was appointed as Lecturer on

25.10.2006. The grievance of the appellant is that he was eligible

to the post of Professor. Respondent No.2 was appointed on the

basis of the Ph.D. Degree allegedly obtained fraudulently. The

appellant has further challenged the Ph.D. degree awarded to

respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.2 joined the services in respondent No.1-

University in Civil Engineering Department on 10.12.1998.

NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB

Respondent No.2 secured Ph.D. decree in 2002 and promoted to

the post of Reader on 26.02.2003.

4. The appellant preferred writ petition questioning the

promotion of respondent No.2 from the cadre of Associate

Professor to the cadre of Professor under AICTE Career

Advancement Scheme, in the Department of Civil Engineering.

The main ground of challenge is the qualification/eligibility of

respondent No.2 contending that Ph.D. degree is not genuine.

5. Learned Single Judge after noticing that in view of the

allegations made by the appellant, respondent No.1-Indian Institute

of Science [IISc] in Writ Petition No.12054/2018 constituted a

committee to enquire into the matter, based on the evidence

concluded that respondent No.2 is not indulged in malpractice and

Ph.D. degree is in accordance with law, rejected the contention.

5.1 Learned Single Judge further held that the petitioner is

questioning the promotion and the Ph.D. degree with undue delay

and is an attempt to harass respondent No.2 without just cause.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB

6. Learned Counsel for appellant reiterating the grounds urged

in the writ petition, submits that Ph.D. degree awarded by IISc to

respondent No.2 is not genuine. The promotion on the basis of

said Ph.D. degree is incorrect. Without Ph.D. degree, respondent

No.2 has no adequate qualification and is not eligible to be

promoted to the cadre of Professor.

7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the

appellant.

8. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer on 25.10.2006.

Whereas, respondent No.2 was appointed as Lecturer on

26.11.1998. Respondent No.2 was awarded Ph.D. on 22.06.2002

by the governing council of IISc. On the basis of Ph.D. degree,

respondent No.2 was appointed as Reader. The representation

made by the appellant to IISc on 18.09.2014 seeking forfeiture of

Ph.D. decree was inquired by the Committee of Deans of IISc. The

committee by order dated 25.07.2016, on enquiry, found that

respondent No.2 has not cheated IISc while pursuing Ph.D. degree

and also stated that respondent No.2 was not involved in any

fraudulent activities nor any impropriety on the part of respondent

No.3 in obtaining Ph.D. degree at the institute.

NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB

9. Learned Single Judge considering the contentions raised and

also the submissions of IISc held that Ph.D. decree is genuine in

view of the report of the Committee of IISc. The qualification to the

post of reader is Ph.D. with First Class Bachelors or Masters

Degree in appropriate branch of Engineering with experience of

three years teaching, industry and research as Lecturer or

equivalent. The petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as

Reader on 2002. Learned Single Judge has recorded the findings

as under,

"14. In light of these considerations, this Court is inclined to characterize the petitioner's challenge as an attempt to harass respondent No.3 without just cause. Such a characterization is substantiated by lack of a valid legal basis for the allegations, coupled with the temporal incongruity in raising objections to the academic qualifications and subsequent promotion of respondent No.3. It becomes imperative to discern between genuine grievances and endeavors driven by extraneous motives, ensuring that the Court remains a bastion of justice rather than a forum for unwarranted vexation. Therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the committee of Deans of respondent No.1-IISc and also the order of respondent No.2-University granting promotion to respondent No.3 to the post of Professor.

NC: 2024:KHC:24234-DB

15. The Ph.D. degree awarded to respondent No.3 in 2002 cannot be interfered with at this juncture. The promotion granted to respondent No.3 as a Reader in 2003 was never called in question by the petitioner. Consequently, the second promotion which is based on recommendation of Selection Committee meeting held on 17.01.2019 thereby promoting the respondent No.3 from the cadre of Assistant Professor to the cadre of Professor also does not warrant any indulgence at the hands of this Court."

10. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Reader, then promoted

to Associate Professor on the basis of Ph.D. degree, without

changing the earlier promotions, it is not open to the appellant to

change promotion of respondent No.2 from Associate Professor to

Professor.

11. On consideration of the grounds raised, submissions and the

findings recorded by learned Single Judge, we find no reason to

interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. As

held by learned Single Judge, the appellant is dragging respondent

No.2 in Court proceedings without just reason and is an attempt to

harass him without just cause. This Court is of the view that this

appeal is abuse of process, devoid of merit and intended to harass