[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr. C.D. Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
W.A. No.140/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.140/2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. C.D. VENKATESH
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH C.S.
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NOW RETIRED AS PRINCIPAL
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM MALNAD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
HIGH COURT OF HASSAN-573202
KARNATAKA AND NOW R/AT NO.1432
SHAMANNA KRIPA
MARUTHI STREET
N R EXTENSION, HASSAN-573201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
3. THE PRINCIPAL
MALNAD COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
HASSAN-573201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
W.A. No.140/2023
HC-KAR
4. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT COLLEGIATE AND
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4
SRI. MAN MOHAN P.N. ADV., FOR R3)
******
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2022 PASSED IN WP
NO.2219/2012 (BATCH NO. WP 2219-2221/2012), ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2022 passed in
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
W.P.No.2219/2012 (S-RES), wherein the writ petition filed
by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Sri.Subramanya Bhat M, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single
Judge, without considering the fact in its proper
perspective, dismissed the petition. The learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the appellant was compelled
to pursue Ph.D. as the same was made a mandatory
qualification for promotion to the posts of Associate
Professor and Professor under the Government Orders and
the AICTE Regulations. Therefore, the deputation was not
voluntary but necessitated by statutory requirements. It
is further contended that the appellant was deputed under
the Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) sponsored by
the AICTE and the said deputation was subsequently
granted post facto approval by the Government. Once
such approval is granted, recovery of salary paid during
the deputation period is wholly unjustified. It is further
submitted that similarly situated teaching faculty of the
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
very same institution, including one Dr.Vishwanath Hegde,
were either not subjected to recovery or the recovered
amount was later refunded. Hence, singling out the
appellant for recovery amounts to hostile discrimination
offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
It is also submitted that there was no financial loss caused
to the Government or the Institution as no substitute staff
was appointed during the appellant's deputation.
Therefore, the action of recovery is arbitrary, harsh and
liable to be set aside. Hence, he seeks to allow the
appeal.
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and
Sri.Manmohan P.N., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 would support the impugned order and
submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition. It is submitted that Appendix II-A Rule
1(7) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, clearly
stipulates that the deputation for higher studies can be
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
permitted only once during the entire service of an
employee. It is further submitted that the appellant had
already availed the deputation earlier for acquiring the
Master's Degree and therefore, the second deputation for
pursuing Ph.D. could only be at his own cost by availing
leave at his credit. The payment of salary during the
second deputation was contrary to the statutory rules and
the audit objections were rightly raised. It is also
submitted that the post facto approval granted by the
Government only regularizes the deputation and does not
confer any right to claim salary contrary to the Rules. Any
payment made in violation of the statutory provisions does
not create a legal entitlement. It is contended that the
plea of discrimination is misconceived, as Article 14 of the
Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality.
An illegality, if committed in favour of others, cannot be
relied upon by the appellant to seek similar relief. Hence,
the recovery effected is legal, justified and does not call
for any interference by this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
4. We have heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2, 4,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and meticulously
perused the material available on record. We have given
our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on
both the sites.
5. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was
appointed as a Lecturer in the respondent No.3-College in
the year 1984. He was deputed during the years 1992-94
to acquire the Master's Degree in Engineering, during
which period he was paid full salary. After acquiring the
said qualification, he was promoted as the Assistant
Professor and thereafter, as the Associate Professor. It is
also not in dispute that subsequently, pursuant to the
Government Orders making Ph.D. a mandatory
qualification for promotion, the appellant was deputed for
the second time during the period from 16.07.2009 to
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
16.07.2012 to pursue Ph.D. under the Quality
Improvement Programme (QIP). During this period also,
salary was paid to the appellant. The audit objections
were thereafter raised on the ground that the appellant
was deputed for higher studies for the second time and
that payment of salary during such second deputation was
contrary to Appendix II-A Rule 1(7) of the Karnataka Civil
Services Rules and the said circular is produced at
Annexure-H. On the basis of such audit objections,
recovery proceedings were initiated. The principal
contention of the appellant is that the deputation was
necessitated due to the statutory requirements prescribed
by the UGC and that post facto approval was granted by
the Government. It is further contended that similarly
situated persons were not subjected to recovery and
therefore, the action is discriminatory.
6. The issue that arises for consideration is
whether the appellant was legally entitled to the payment
of salary during the period of his second deputation for
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
higher studies. Appendix II-A Rule 1(7) of the Karnataka
Civil Services Rules specifically provides that the
deputation for higher studies or specialised training shall
ordinarily be permitted only once during the entire service
of a Government servant and the deputation for the
second time can only be at the cost of the employee by
availing leave at his credit, subject to prior permission of
the Government. The respondent No.3-College being an
aided institution is bound by the Karnataka Civil Services
Rules and the Government circulars governing deputation
and study leave. Any payment made contrary to the
statutory rules would not confer a legal right on the
employee. Merely because the appellant was required to
acquire Ph.D. for the purpose of promotion, the same by
itself would not override the statutory rules governing
deputation and payment of salary. The learned Single
Judge has rightly held that there is no provision under the
law to pay the full salary during the period of second
deputation for higher studies. The contention regarding
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
post facto approval also does not advance the case of the
appellant. Post facto approval only regularises the
deputation but does not create a right to claim salary
contrary to the Rules.
7. Insofar as the plea of discrimination is
concerned, it is untenable. If any benefit has been
extended to others contrary to Rules, the same cannot be
relied upon to claim parity in illegality. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India does not envisage the negative
equality. We also do not find any merit in the contention
that the recovery violates Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The recovery is made in accordance with the
statutory Rules and the audit objections and therefore,
cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Hence, on an
overall consideration of the matter, we find no error or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
warranting interference in this appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5489-DB
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and
the same is dismissed. Consequently, the pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
