[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr Phaniraja K L vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2026

Author: H T Narendra Prasad

Bench: H T Narendra Prasad

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:4318
                                                      WP No. 18193 of 2024


                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 18193 OF 2024 (S-RES)


                      BETWEEN:

                      DR PHANIRAJA K L
                      S/O KONANDUR LINGAPPA
                      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                      WORKING AS CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER
                      VETERINARY HOSPITAL, HUMCHA
                      HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 436.

                      R/A KONAMDUR MAIN ROAD
                      NEAR C K CIRCLE, KONANDUR
                      THIRTHA HALLI TALUK
                      SHIVAMOGGA - 577422.
                                                             ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
MALATHI
CHALUVA IYENGAR
                      (BY SRI. K DIWAKARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH
COURTOF               SRI. HITESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA

                      AND:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                           DEPARTMENT F PERSONNEL AND
                           ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
                           STATE OF KARANTAKA
                           REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
                           VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
                         -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC:4318
                                WP No. 18193 of 2024


HC-KAR




2.   KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
     AND FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
     REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
     NANDI NAGAR, P B NO. 6
     BIDAR-585 401.

3.   REGISTRAR
     KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
     AND FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
     NANDI NAGAR, P B NO. 6
     BIDAR - 585401.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1:
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
SUCH ORDER OR NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT TO
QUASH THE NOTICE WITH BEARING NO.VC/KVAFSU/
BACKLOG/ASSC.PROF/ENDORSEMENT/2022-23/526       AND
DATED: 3.05.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                                    -3-
                                                        NC: 2026:KHC:4318
                                                  WP No. 18193 of 2024


HC-KAR




                          ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has called in question the

endorsement dated 03.05.2023 issued by respondent

No.3-University at Annexure-A, whereby, the application

filed by the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor

has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-University

issued a Notification on 09.07.2010 inviting applications to

the backlog post of Professor as well as Associate

Professor in the discipline of Veterinary Microbiology under

the reserved Scheduled Caste category. Subsequently, the

University issued a Corrigendum dated 07.12.2010

modifying the earlier notification dated 09.07.2010.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application

on 04.01.2011 and also one Dr.Vivekananda has filed an

application to the post of Associate Professor. After

scrutiny of the applications and completion of selection

process, the respondent-University has recommended the

name of Dr.Vivekananda as per the merit list, while the

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

name of the petitioner was not recommended. Aggrieved

by the said selection, the petitioner approached this Court

by filing W.P.No.18656/2011 c/w 17359/2011. This Court,

by order dated 16.07.2019 had partly allowed the writ

petitions and directed the respondent-University to re-

examine the case of the petitioner and Dr.Vivekananda on

merits and shall thereafter publish the selection list,

provided, the candidates meet the qualifications stipulated

by the University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC').

Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner herein

preferred Writ Appeal No.3035/2019 c/w 3036/2019. This

Court, by judgment dated 24.11.2021 at Annexure-B,

disposed of the writ appeals; set aside the order passed by

the learned Single Judge and directed the respondent

Nos.1 and 2-University to consider the case of the

appellant (petitioner herein) for appointment to the post of

Associate Professor in accordance with the provisions of

Karnataka State Civil Services (unfilled Vacancies reserved

for persons belonging to SC and ST) (Special Recruitment)

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Rules, 2001 (for short 'the 2001 Rules'). Pursuant to the

directions of this Court, the respondent-University

reconsidered the case of the petitioner and issued the

impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2023, rejecting his

application. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the

impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

has made the following submissions:

(a) The Division Bench of this Court in earlier round

of litigation in W.A.No.3035/2019 c/w W.A.No.3036/2019

disposed of on 24.11.2021 had specifically directed the

respondent-University to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment to the post of Associate

Professor in accordance with the 2001 Rules. It was

further submitted that, while filling up backlog vacancies

under the 2001 Rules, the qualifications prescribed in the

Notification as on the date of issuance of the Notification

alone are required to be considered, and not the

qualifications introduced subsequently by way of

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

amendment either to the Universities Act or to the UGC

Regulations. Such subsequent amendments, are

inapplicable to the notifications issued for filling up backlog

vacancies.

(b) It was further submitted that as per the

Notification dated 09.07.2010, the petitioner has acquired

the qualification of Ph.D Degree in the concerned/allied

subject as prescribed by the University; he has good

academic record with atleast 50% marks and possesses

five years experience in Teaching and/or in

Research/Extension in the cadre of Assistant Professor. He

further submitted that the petitioner has worked as a

Veterinary Officer on deputation in the Department of

Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science from

27.02.1999 to 02.10.2008 and that is equivalent to the

post of Assistant Professor. Thereafter, from 04.10.2008

to till the date of filing the application, he was working as

an Assistant Professor in Veterinary College. Thus, the

petitioner has acquired requisite experience as prescribed

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

in the Notification. Contrary thereto, the respondent-

University has issued the impugned endorsement stating

that the petitioner does not possess five years of

experience.

publications and possesses scholarship by way of

contribution to the educational innovation, design of new

course and curriculum and thereby, satisfying all the

conditions stipulated in the Notification.

(d) The impugned endorsement proceeds on the

erroneous premise that the petitioner does not possess

five years of experience as an Assistant Professor as per

the UGC guidelines issued in the year 2010, which came

into force subsequent to the issuance of the Notification

dated 09.07.2010, and therefore, the same cannot be

applied to the petitioner's case. In support of this

submission, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on

the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in University of

Agricultural Sciences, represented by its Registrar v.

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Venu S.A. and Others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

Kar 20023, to contend that the UGC Regulations are

applicable only to general recruitment and cannot be

invoked for filling up backlog vacancies. Reliance was also

placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Tripura & Others v. Nikhil Ranjan

Chakraborty & Others, in Civil Appeal Nos.691-693

of 2017, disposed of on 20.01.2017, wherein it was held

that the rules in force on the date of occurrence of

vacancy alone are applicable, and not the rules prevailing

on the date of consideration of the application.

With the above submissions, the learned senior

counsel sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-University has made the following counter-

submissions:

(a) She submitted that under the 2001 Rules, the

definition of the term 'qualification' includes prescription of

the required qualifications in the Notification for inviting

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

applications. As per the Notification dated 09.07.2010, the

qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Professor

was five years experience in Teaching and/or in

Research/Extension in the cadre of Assistant Professor or

its equivalent position in the concerned subject. By virtue

of Corrigendum dated 07.12.2010, the qualifications

prescribed under the UGC Regulations were expressly

incorporated. The petitioner, having accepted both the

Notification dated 09.07.2010 and the Corrigendum dated

07.12.2010, submitted his application on 04.01.2011.

Having done so, the petitioner is estopped from

contending that the qualifications introduced by the

Corrigendum are not applicable to his case. In support of

her contention, she has placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and

Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others,

reported in (2023) 17 SCC 147.

(b) Learned Counsel further contended that even as

per the Notification dated 09.07.2010, the petitioner has

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

no experience of teaching in the cadre of Assistant

Professor with pay scale of Rs.8,000 - Rs.13,500. The

service rendered by the petitioner as a Veterinary Officer

from 27.02.1999 to 02.10.2008 cannot be treated as

equivalent to experience in the cadre of Assistant

Professor for the purpose of eligibility. The Committee

after evaluating the publications submitted by the

petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that they could not be

considered as equivalent or qualifying publications. Once

such a decision is taken by the Committee, this Hon'ble

Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, cannot sit as an appellate

authority and re-appreciate the decision on merits. In

support of her contentions, she has relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal

and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and

Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 (paragraphs 10

and 17), and Union Public Service Commission v. M.

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Sathiya Priya and Others, reported in (2018) 15 SCC

796 (paragraph-20).

the Notification dated 09.07.2010, to the post of Associate

Professor, a candidate must possess five years of

experience in Teaching and/or research/Extension in the

cadre of Assistant Professor or its equivalent position in

the concerned subject. Thereafter, a Corrigendum dated

07.12.2010 has been issued and notification dated

09.07.2010 has been modified holding that the candidate

has to satisfy with the qualifications prescribed under the

UGC Regulations. Since the petitioner has not satisfied the

qualifications prescribed under the UGC Regulations, his

case has been rejected. In support, she has relied upon

the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Appeal

No.508/2025 dated 15.10.2025 (paragraph-21)

wherein it has been held that even after issuance of a

notification inviting applications from eligible candidates,

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

the qualifications prescribed by AICTE, before considering

the applications, are made applicable.

(d) Lastly, learned counsel contended that the

judgment relied upon by the petitioner in State of

Tripura and Others v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and

Others, arising out of Civil Appeal Nos.691-693 of

2017, has been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Raj

Kumar and others reported in (2023) 3 SCC SC 773

(paragraph 80). It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has categorically held that if a person is not legally

entitled to a benefit or grant, such person cannot claim the

same merely on equitable considerations.

With the above submissions, she sought for dismissal

of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused

the writ papers.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

6. The respondent-University has issued a Notification

on 09.07.2010 inviting applications for filling up backlog

post of Professor and Associate Professor from among the

reserved Scheduled Castes category. In so far as the post

of Associate Professor is concerned, the qualifications

prescribed under the Notification dated 09.07.2010 are

extracted hereunder:

"Associate Professor Cadre (Pay Scale Rs. 12000-420-18300 or revised from time to time:

(1) A Ph.D degree in the concerned / allied subject prescribed by the University (2) Good academic record with atleast 50% marks or an equivalent grade of "B" in the UGC 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master's degree level in the concerned subject / allied subject from a recognized Indian university or an equivalent degree from a Foreign University (3) Five years of experience in Teaching and/or in Research/Extension in the cadre of Assistant Professor (Pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 or as revised from time to time) or its equivalent position in the concerned subject, excluding the period spent for obtaining the Ph.D. degree (subject to a maximum of 3 years) and has made some mark in the area of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publication, contribution to

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

educations invocation, design of new courses and curricula."

7. Thereafter, by Corrigendum dated 07.12.2010, the

respondent-University has modified the Notification dated

09.07.2010. The relevant portion of the Corrigendum

dated 07.12.2010 in so far as it relates to the post of

Associate Professor, reads as under:

"FOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Ph.D in the concerned / allied subject with 5 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Extension OR The candidates outside the University system, shall possess at least 50% of marks or an equivalent grade of B in the seven point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Master's Degree in the concerned subject with 10 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Extension."

8. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application to

the post of Associate Professor and participated in the

selection process. After being unsuccessful, it is not open

for the petitioner to challenge the selection criteria. The

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Apex Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) in

paragraph 38, 38.1 and 38.2 has held as follows:

"38. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the advertisement notice dated 5-5- 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12-6- 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:

38.1. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.

38.2. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of Physiotherapist.

Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:

(SCC p. 320, para 24).

"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

9. As per the qualifications prescribed in the Notification

dated 09.07.2010 issued by the respondent-University,

the candidate is required to possess a Ph.D Degree in

concerned/allied subject prescribed by the University. It is

not in dispute that the petitioner possess a requisite Ph.D

Degree. As per the condition No.2, the candidate should

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

have good academic records with at least 50% marks and

the petitioner has satisfied the said condition No.2.

Condition No.3 stipulates that the candidate should have

Five years of experience in Teaching and/or in

Research/Extension in the cadre of Assistant Professor

(Pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 or as revised from time to

time) or its equivalent position in the concerned subject,

excluding the period spent for obtaining the Ph.D. degree

(subject to a maximum of 3 years) and has made some

mark in the area of scholarship as evidenced by quality of

publication, contribution to educations invocation, design

of new courses and curricula. In support of his clam, the

petitioner has produced Experience Certificates along with

other relevant documents. As per the Certificate issued by

Karnataka Veterinary, Animal fisheries Sciences University,

Bidar dated 11.11.2020, the service rendered by the

petitioner in the Department of Animal Husbandry and

University, is as follows:

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Sl. Designation Period Place of working No. 1 Veterinary 27.02.1999 02.10.2008 Dept. of Animal Officer Husbandry & Veterinary Service.

2     Assistant             04.10.2008    13.07.2009        Veterinary College,
      Professor)OPG)                                        Bengaluru
3     Assistant             20.07.2009    30.09.2013        Veterinary College,
      Professor(OPG)                                        Hassan
4     Assistant             01.10.2013    01.10.2013        Veterinary College,
      Professor(OPG)                                        Shivamogga
5     Assistant             23.12.2015     To till date     Veterinary College,
      Professor(OPG)                                        Bengaluru

10. The petitioner has worked as Veterinary Officer,

Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services

from 27.02.1999 to 02.10.2008. The said position cannot

be construed as equivalent to the experience required by

the respondent-University under the Notification for

appointment to the post of Associate Professor. The

petitioner thereafter worked as an Assistant Professor

from 04.10.2008 onwards to till date. The Notification has

been issued on 09.07.2010 and last date for filing the

application is 15.01.2011. Even if the experience is

reckoned up to the last date for submission of

applications, namely 15.01.2011, the petitioner does not

possess five years' experience in the cadre of Assistant

Professor or its equivalent as mandated under the

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Notification. Consequently, the respondent-University was

justified in issuing the impugned endorsement dated

03.05.2023 rejecting the petitioner's candidature. The

relevant portion of the endorsement dated 03.05.2023 is

extracted hereunder:

"The Recommendations of the Selection cum counselling Committee in sealed cover was submitted to the Special Meeting of Board of Management Dated 30-03-2023 and the Board approved the Decision of the Selection cum counselling Committee.

Recommendation of the Selection Cum Counselling Committee

Not recommended for the post

The candidate is not fit to be considered to be appointed for the post of Associate Professor in the Subject of Veterinary Microbiology

This endorsement is being issued with the approval of the competent authority."

11. Another ground on which the petitioner's claim has

been rejected is that, although the petitioner relies upon

certain publications to establish academic scholarship, the

same do not meet the standard of quality publications

required for appointment to the post of Associate

- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Professor. The assessment of the quality of publications

has been undertaken by the Selection Committee. This

Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot act as an

appellate authority to reassess such expert evaluation.

Consequently, no infirmity can be found in the

endorsement issued by the respondent.

12. With regard to the petitioner's contention that the

qualifications prescribed as on the date when the

vacancies arose ought to be considered, reliance has been

placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty (supra), which referred to

the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah. However, it is relevant to

note, firstly, that when the notification prescribing the

qualifications and inviting applications was issued, the

petitioner did not challenge the same and had, in fact,

accepted it. Secondly, the judgment in Y.V.Rangaiah,

relied upon in Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty, has since

been distinguished and overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme

- 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

Court in (2023) 3 SCC 773. The paragraphs 80-82 are

relevant and same is extracted below:

"80. The Court considered a large number of decisions that distinguished Rangaiah case and held as a matter of principle that rules that exist on the date when the case for promotion was taken up would hold the field. The Court further observed that there is no rule which specifically mandates that the vacancies prior to the amendment must be filled as per the rules that existed and not the new Rules. This is a complete reversal of the principle set to have been laid down in Rangaiah case.

81. Finally, D. Raghu v. R. Basaveswarudu, is yet another decision that has not followed the principle in Rangaiah case². The Court held as under:

(D.Raghu case, SCC p. 68, para 129).

"129. .... 129.8. The High Court was in error in holding that it has to be necessarily held that the vacancies which arose prior to the revised Recruitment Rules coming into force have to be filled up under the then existing Rules ("the 1979 Rules") relying upon case law including Rangaiah². There was a conscious decision taken to not fill up vacancies based on the restructuring, and what is more, letters dated 28-10-2002 and 14-11-2002 show that promotion to the post of Inspector was to be effected based on the new Recruitment Rules."

Analysis

82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah² would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah². The findings in these judgments, that have a direct

- 22 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah² are as under:

82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah case must be understood in the context of the rules involved, therein.

82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.

82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government.

There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article

14.

82.4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.

82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to

- 23 -

NC: 2026:KHC:4318

HC-KAR

vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases."

13. Further, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner

in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 20023 pertains to the adoption of

UGC Regulations by the University in general and does not

deal with the filling up of backlog vacancies. For the

purpose of filling backlog posts, the 2001 Rules specifically

define "qualification" as that prescribed in the notification

calling for applications for filling such backlog posts.