Karnataka High Court
Dr Phaniraja K L vs Shivashankar on 5 March, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
CCC No. 479 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
CCC NO. 479 OF 2023 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. PHANIRAJA K L
S/O KONANDUR LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER
VETERINARY HOSPITAL, HUMCHA
HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 560 024.
R/A. KONAMDUR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR C.K. CIRCLE, KONANDUR,
THIRTHA HALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 422.
...COMPLAINANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI K. DIWAKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
by AMBIKA H B A/W SRI HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI ADITYA D., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SHIVASHANKAR
REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND
FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
NANDI NAGAR, PB NO.6
BIDAR - 585 401
2. DR. K.C. VEERANNA
VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL &
FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
CCC No. 479 of 2023
NANDI NAGAR, P.B. No.6
BIDAR - 585 401
3. M.S. SRIKAR
SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINSTRATIVE REFORMS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...ACCUSED
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIKRAM H. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. VAISHALI HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED No.1,
V/O DATED 15/09/2023, ACCUSED 2 & 3 ARE DELETED
SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF CONTEMPT
OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED
NO.1 IN THE ABOVE CASE FOR HAVING COMMITTED AN ACT OF
CONTEMPT WILLFULLY, INTENTIONALLY, PURPOSEFULLY AND
DELIBERATELY BY DISOBEYING THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.02.2023 IN WP.NO.1185/2023(S-RES) AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
CCC No. 479 of 2023
ORDER
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K. Diwakar assisted by
learned advocate Mr. Hitesh Gowda for the complainant, learned
advocate Mr. Vikram H. Bhat for accused No.1 and learned
Government Advocate Mr. S. S. Mahendra for the respondent -
State.
2. It was the following order dated 15.02.2023 passed by
learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, that is
brought under contempt jurisdiction of this court,
"(a) The petition is allowed in part and the
impugned Endorsement dated 11.02.2022
[Annexure-E] is quashed.
(b) The second respondent, viz., the Registrar
of the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fishery
Science University, is called upon to ensure that
the needful is done to enable the concerned
Selection Committee to consider the petitioner's
candidature for appointment of 'Associate
Professor' with the Department of Veterinary
Microbiology in accordance with the Rules 2001
as directed by the Division Bench in the writ
appeals in W.A.No.3035/2019 connected with
W.A.No.3036/2019 keeping in mind the UGC
Regulations on Age Limit.
(c) This exercise shall be completed and in
accordance with law before 31.03.2023 and the
petitioner be informed of the decision."
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
3. As per the aforesaid directions, the petitioner's
candidature for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in
the Department of Veterinary Microbiology was required to be
considered by the Selection Committee as directed by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.3035 of 2019 c/w Writ Appeal No.3036 of
2019 keeping in mind the University Grants Commission (UGC)
Regulations on age limit.
4. In response to the present petition, counter affidavit
came to be filed on behalf of the accused - Registrar of Karnataka
Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Bidar.
Along with the affidavit, inter alia, the endorsement dated
03.05.2023 was produced. The endorsement finally recorded the
recommendation of the Selection Committee that "the candidate is
not fit to be considered to be appointed for the post of Associate
Professor in the subject of Veterinary Microbiology".
4.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate
for the complainant that the decision of the Committee still amounts
to committing contempt of the directions of the court in as much as,
the directions of learned Single Judge in terms provided that the
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
case of the complainant was required to be considered in light of
the order of the Division Bench in the writ appeal which was in the
case of the very petitioner.
5. It is relevant to reproduce the directions of the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.3035 of 2019 c/w Writ Appeal No.3036 of
2019 which figures on record. The operative part reads as under,
"11. For the aforementioned reasons, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is set
aside. The selection of respondent No.4 viz.,
Smt.D.Rathnamma to the post of Associate
Professor is quashed and respondent Nos.1
and 2 are directed to consider the case of the
appellant for appointment to the post of the
Associate Professor in accordance with 2001
Rules. Needless to state that in case, the
appellant is found entitled to, he shall be entitle
to all consequential benefits. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any opinion
with regard to claim of appellant
Accordingly, the appeals are disposed
of."
5.1 Reading the aforesaid directions makes it abundantly
clear that even the Division Bench directed only to consider the
case of the complainant-appellant for appointment to the post of
Associate Professor in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil
Services (unfilled vacancies reserved for persons belonging to SC
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
and ST) (Special Recruitment) Rules 2001. It was further observed
that if the appellant is found entitled to the post, he shall be given
the consequential benefits. The court further made clear that it did
not express any opinion with regard to the claim of the appellant.
5.2 A direction 'to consider' a case does not mean that the
petitioner is readily entitled to appointment to the post. The
consideration is always on merits to be undertaken by the Authority
which is directed to consider the case of the petitioner. The
Selection Committee has taken a decision stating that the
candidate is not fit to be considered to be appointed to the post.
5.3 It is not possible to countenance the submission of
learned Senior Advocate that the decision passed by the Selection
Committee amounts to contempt of court. The case of the
complainant is considered and he is found not fit to be appointed.
6. If the complainant is aggrieved by the said decision, it
is always open to the complainant to substantively challenge the
said decision.
NC: 2024:KHC:9183-DB
7. The contempt petition no more survives and it is
disposed of .
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
