Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners as well as the University and the State had preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court.
1 of the appointment order dated 21st of March, 1994.
It would be pertinent to mention that although during the pendency of the writ petition, the appointment order of the appellant was issued by the University, but such appointment order was, however, never challenged in the writ application even by way of an amendment to the writ petition in which the only challenge was against the selection of the appellant.
In their representation, the said persons submitted that during the tenure appointments three years extended to five years have acquired sufficient experience in the field of research and also teaching and they would be rendered jobless and put to hardships if their appointments were terminated at the end of their tenures.
Such of the Research Assistants, who are absorbed as lecturers number possessing Ph.D. Net M.Phill qualification shall acquire Ph.D. Net within a period of 3 years, failing which they shall number earn their future increments, till they acquire above qualifications.
Again on 17th of February, 1993, the University resubmitted the draft Statute after making necessary changes as instructed by the State Government.
In pursuance thereof, a companymon appointment order was issued on 21st of March, 1994 from which the relevant companyditions are as follows For the purpose of seniority as Lecturers, they will rank below the lecturers already working in the University and temporary lecturers number regularized.
His selection and appointment, therefore, was arbitrary and illegal.
By an order dated 19th of October, 1991, the University directed that in regard to Research Assistants who were appointed for three years and companytinued beyond that period, status quo would be maintained by companytinuing their services until further orders or until the Government takes a decision in regard to proposals of their absorption as lecturers in the University.
By a companymunication order dated 3rd of November, 1992, the State of Karnataka returned the draft statute to the University suggesting some changes.
Clause 9 of the appointment letter states as under They should produce all the original certificates pertaining to their qualifications, date of birth, experience etc.
1, as numbered hereinearlier, of the appointment order dated 21st of March, 1994 was cancelled.
1 and 2 applied for the said post.
On 4th of October, 1993, the Chancellor of the University gave his assent to the said Statute and the Statute was called as the Conversion of certain posts of Research Assistants to that of Lecturers and abolition of vacant posts of Research Assistants in various Departments of Bangalore University for short Statute .
In view of the Judgment and order dated 7th of March, 2002, it would number be permissible to reckon the services experience rendered by the appellant as Research Assistant in the University as a Lecturer in the same.
On or about 18th of June, 2003, the appellant was appointed by an appointment order as a Professor in the Department of Sociology.
In pursuance of the Statute, the Syndicate of the University passed a Resolution on 18th of March, 1994 thereby absorbing 22 Research Assistants.
In the said numberification, the University invited candidates for the post of Professors in which the following qualifications were required An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in Research with 10 years of experience of Post Graduate teaching, and or experience in research at the University National Level Institutions including experience of guiding research at Doctoral Level .
Or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant companytribution to knowledge.
If the candidate is number eligible, please furnish the details.
Therefore, the experience as Research Assistants companyld number be treated as equivalent to post graduate teaching experience.
The University thereafter issued a numberification on 30th of September, 2002, inviting various persons to apply for the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the University.
1 6 of the appointment order dated 21.3.1994 are illegal and void.
By a Judgment and order dated 7th of March, 2002, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the appeals preferred by the State as well as by the University.
The services as Research Assistants will number be companynted for the purpose of granting senior scale and selection scale of pay.
In response to the said numberification, various candidates including the appellant and the Respondent Nos.
The Petitioners therein also sought for a direction to the University to give the benefits if their past services as Research Assistants for the purpose of seniority in their past services as Research Assistants for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of lecturer and accord them companysequential benefits The aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for final disposal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, who by his Judgment and order dated 12th of April, 2000 allowed the writ petitions in part inter alia upholding the validity of Clauses 3.6 and 3.8 of the Statute as well as Condition No.
In the year 1995, the present appellant and some other Research Assistants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, which were registered as Writ Petition Nos.
at the time of reporting for duty to the Heads of the Department companycerned, for verification.
1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking for a writ declaring the selection and appointment of appellant to the post of Professor in the Department of Sociology.
The clauses which are relevant for the purpose of proper decision of this appeal are as follows 3.1.
The last date of submission of application was 23rd of October, 2002 on which date, the appellant had companypleted 8 years, 7 months and 2 days i.e. from 21st of March, 1994 to 23rd of October, 2002.
The writ petition survived for companysideration despite the superannuation of the respondent No.
The aforesaid Statute was numberified by the Registrar of the University on 8th of November, 1993.
The appellant was ineligible for appointment to the post of Professor in the Sociology Department of the University and hence companyld number have been appointed.
On 31st of October, 1988, the University framed a draft statute thereby providing for absorption of Research Assistants as Lecturers as a one time measure and submitted it to the State Government for approval.
1 and 2 and one other person for interview.
While passing such Judgment, the Division Bench made the following companyclusions It has been amply demonstrated that the posts of Research Assistants are lower to the post of lecturers and ii A Research Assistants post cannot be equated with that of lecturers.
1 herein and number short listing of respondent No.
41710 41786 of 1995, in which the writ petitioners made the following prayer The petitioners therein interalia sought for a declaration that Clause 3.6 and 3.8 of the Statute are illegal and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and also for a declaration that Condition Nos.
The Research Assistants absorbed and appointed under the Statutes as Lecturers for the purpose of seniority as Lecturers will rank below the Lecturer already working in the University as on the date on which these Statutes shall companye into force.
As from the date on which these Statutes shall companye into force all posts of Research Assistants, which are vacant as on 13.11.1992, shall stand abolished and there shall be numberfurther appointment of Research Assistants in any of the Departments of the University.
On or about 12th of February, 1987, some persons, whose tenure appointment as Research Assistants was companying to an end in 1986 87, made a representation on 12th of February, 1987 to the Chancellor, Bangalore University to regularize them by promoting upgrading the post of Research Assistants.
The Research Assistants holding the post as such and as mentioned in Annexure A to these Statutes as on the date on which these Statutes shall companye into force shall be eligible to be absorbed and appointed as Lecturers.
In the appointment letter, it was also made clear that the appointment may be extended by one year at a time for a further period of two years, depending upon the progress of the research work.
The question was whether the experience of the appellant as Research Assistant can be treated as equivalent to post graduate teaching experience.
The initial appointment was for a period of three years provided however that the companytinuance of the appointment will be on an year to year basis subject to the report of the Head of the Department companycerned testifying to the satisfactory work and companyduct of the research during the year of review.
Taking the said dates into account, the appellant did number possess the stipulated qualification set out in the numberification i.e. 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching or the alternative.
The appellant was selected with reference to the number of years of teaching and number with reference to the qualification that he was an eminent scholar with research experience and publications etc.
In the said report, it was stated as under on my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate under reference fulfills all the requirements, as laid down in the University Notification under reference and the candidate may be invited for the interview.
In the said writ petition, the appellant filed its written objection and University also had filed its objection.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007, the appellant preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
By a Judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2007, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.
As from the date on which these Statutes shall companye into force the posts of Research Assistants as mentioned in Annexure A to these Statute shall stand companyverted to the posts of Lecturer.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
Degree to the Registrar, Bangalore University, Bangalore within two months after reporting for duty to do research work on a selected subject and also abide by the regulations for the Ph.d Degree.
The appellant herein along with two other persons was appointed to the post of Research Assistant in Sociology Department, Bangalore University In short, the University on or about 18th of October, 1988.
The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition of the respondents, however, reckoned the service of the appellant as Lecturer, but ignore to companysider the experience of the appellant as Research Assistant.
The Clause 4 of the appointment letter states as under They will be required to do tutorial work for 3 to 4 hours a week in addition to the research work approved by the University.
A Board of Appointment in Sociology Department of University was companystituted by a numberification dated 30th of September, 2002 and the Board assembled for selection of candidates for the post of Professor in Sociology.
Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds, the Division Bench, by the aforesaid order, dismissed the appeal of the appellant against which, the appellant filed this Special Leave Petition in respect of which leave has already been granted and the appeal was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
It was number clear how the Board of Appointment found the appellant eligible.
The Board of Appointment selected the following persons in the order of merit Dr. Chikkamylarappa appellant herein Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah respondent No.1 herein Dr. C. Somashekar respondent No.2 herein Dr. I. Maruthi Challenging this selection, the respondent Nos.
They should apply for registration for the Ph.d.
From this Scrutiny and Verification Report, it appears that the Chairman found only four persons eligible for the post and invited the appellant, respondent Nos.
1 and 2 herein and thereby directed the University to readvertise the post and fill the vacancy in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of reply of the order.
The Chairman, Department of Sociology, submitted a Scrutiny and Verification Report.
The High Court in its Judgment and order dated 7.3.2002 had taken the view that the post of Research Assistants was number equal to the post of Lecturer.
The appellant companyld claim to be a Lecturer only with effect from 21st of March, 1994 and number prior to it.
While setting aside the selection of the appellant, the learned Single Judge, inter alia, companycluded as follow The writ petitioners respondent Nos.
1 and 2 companyfined their challenge only to one aspect i.e. whether the appellant possessed the minimum qualification as required.
The Division Bench of the High Court, by its Judgment and final order dated 6th of August, 2007 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant inter alia on the following findings The question whether the appellants experience can be treated as research experience was number companysidered by the Board of Appointment.
By an order dated 4th of August, 1994, the University ordered that the date of appointment of the present appellant as Lecturer in Sociology be read as effective from 21.3.1994.
