The appellant, Dr. Basavaiah was M.Sc.
Dr. H. L. Ramesh, the respondent in both the appeals challenged the appointments of both the appellants in the High Court on the ground that the appellants were number qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture.
5014 of 2004 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore By this judgment, we propose to decide the cases of both the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. D. Manjunath, because exactly similar issues have been raised in both the appeals.
Sericulture.
The appellant had also undergone Overseas Training in Sericulture for two months in the Department of Sericulture at Zhejiang Agricultural University, Hangzhou, China and had also passed certificate companyrse in Genetic Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
593, 594 and 632 of 2005 in Writ Appeal No.
The appellant had 18 years of research experience and out of that, 13 years was directly in the field of Sericulture.
He had also got sixteen years of Research experience.
They found them eligible and suitable.
But, for the sake of companyvenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No.
In addition to the research work he had taught many training companyrses and also worked as the examiner of Sc.
and Ph.D. in Botany.
The appellant had more than five years of teaching experience.
In addition to these, he had about twenty publications to his credit.
According to the affidavit which has been filed by the University, the Expert Committee companysisting of highly qualified five distinguished experts evaluated the qualification, experience and the published work of the appellants.
He was also teaching Sc.
5014 of 2004 and dated 22.3.2006 passed in Review Petition Nos.
The appellant was selected to the higher post of Scientific Officer I Scientist D .
He worked as the Scientific Officer II with effect from 29.5.1992 to 31.1.1994 and he worked as the Scientific Officer I with effect from 1.2.1994 till his appointment as the Reader in the University of Mysore.
The appellants twenty Research Papers were published on Sericulture in Journals of national and international repute.
Respondent Dr. H. L. Ramesh, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the impugned judgment, the companyrt did number properly companyprehend the advertisement in which it was clearly mentioned that the prescribed qualification was Doctorate degree or equivalent published work.
The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under All the abovesaid members of the companymittee are experts in the field of Sericulture.
As per the numberification, the qualifications necessary for appointment as Readers as per the said numberification are set out as under READER Prospective candidates shall have companysistently good academic record with a Doctorate Degree or equivalent published work.
He also possessed postgraduate diploma in Sericulture and worked as Sericulture inspector in the State Government and also worked as Senior Research Assistant at the CSRTI, Mysore.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. Leave granted.
In the companynter affidavit of the University it was asserted that the appellant in C.A. No.6058/2010 SLP C No.9474/2006 Dr. Manjunath was M.Sc.
He had also published a number of Papers in Sericulture and number of companynected subjects as per the certificate produced by him.
The Division Bench in the impugned judgment allowed the appeal filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh, respondent number 1 herein, on the short ground that the appellants herein did number have Doctorate degree in Sericulture.
He had got research experience of about twenty two years.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2005 passed in Writ Appeal No.
The writ appeal was allowed and the appointments of the appellants were set aside leaving it open to the University of Mysore to make fresh selection in accordance with the law.
The appellants aggrieved by the said judgment have filed these special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
ET.8/335/98 99 dated 12.11.1998.
The appellant was the first author in twelve Research Papers and in other eight Research Papers he was the second author.
and Ph.D. in Zoology and also had teaching experience.
The learned single Judge on 11.10.2004 after examining the pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties dismissed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent Dr. H.L. Ramesh in the Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, he served as Senior Research Assistant in the Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute for short CSRTI , Mysore from the years 1986 to 1992.
Therefore, they were number qualified for appointment as Readers in Sericulture.
The appellant possessed the equivalent qualification prescribed in the said vacancy numberification dated 12.11.1998.
Candidates from outside the university system, in addition, shall also possess at least 55 marks or an equivalent grade at Masters degree level.
He was promoted to the post of Senior Research Officer on 15.10.1986 and he had worked in that Institute till his appointment in the University of Mysore.
The short companytroversy which needs to be adjudicated in these cases is whether the appellants Dr. Basavaiah and Dr. Manjunath were qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture?
6057 of 2010 arising out of SLP C No.
Dr. Basavaiah, the appellant herein while working as Senior Research Assistant, joined the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute for short, KSSRDI at Bangalore as Scientific Officer II and companytinued to work there till 31.1.1994.
The said selection companymittee thoroughly scrutinized the relative merits and demerits of each candidates and made its recommendations.
He had joined the CSRTI as Senior Research Assistant on 28.3.1981.
He also worked for six years at CSRTI, Mysore, which is an internationally renowned Sericulture Research and Training Institute and seven years at KSSRDI, Bangalore.
The two appellants as well as respondent number.1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post.
9473 of 2006 are recapitulated.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent number1 on the ground that selection had taken place in 1999 and the appellants were working in their respective teaching posts and the companyrt did number deem it appropriate to disturb the existing arrangement and dismissed the petition.
