Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 800
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
Shivanand, Bidar
Versus
Gulbarga University, Rep. by its Registrar & Others
W.A.No.3216 of 2004 (S-RES)
Decided on : 19-11-2009
For the Appellant:Prabhuling K Navadgi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R3 -Ashok Patil, Advocate.
Headnote:LABOUR & SERVICES - Selection: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar & K.N. Keshavanarayana, JJ] Selection for the Post of Lecturer in Computer Applications - Requisite qualification having Post Graduate degree in M.C.A. in I class with distinction - Respondent No. 3 holding a post Graduate degree in Mathematics was selected - Single Judge holding words "relevant subject" in the advertisement means qualifications prescribed for the pot as per U.G.C. norms, and did not necessarily mean only a post graduate degree in Computer Applications subject, but even a post graduate degree in Mathematics is also a subject which has to be understood as ’relevant subject’ for the purpose of appointing a person as Lecturer in M.C.A. course at the University, and such being the view of the Board of Appointment, an expert body for selecting suitable candidates who had considered the applications of the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent to the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Department of the University, the appointment pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate cannot be characterized as either illegal or suffering from any defect, and further being of the view that it will be very unreasonable to hold ’relevant subject’ to mean only Masters Degree in Computer Applications, and it would be rather irrational to conclude that non-mentioning of the subject Mathematics as a subject would lead to the conclusion that it was only a post graduate degree in Computer Applications which was the qualification prescribed for a person applying for the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Course and in this view of the matter, dismissed the writ petition - Writ Appeal - Held, The University with or without going through the Board of Appointment was required to appoint the appellant to the post of Lecturer, as he was the only eligible candidate left in the field. The University has failed in its duties in not doing so, but has gone about putting forth all sorts of defences and counters to justify the illegal appointment of the 3rd respondent for the post of lecturer in MCA Course - This is a clear case of denial of fair opportunity to the appellant and perhaps, the hopes and aspirations of a young person qualified in MCA, was shattered and a person who would have been lecturer for the past 11 years is denied that opportunity only because of the most injudicious and illegal action on the part of the University - We are not only quashing the appointment of the 3rd respondent but also issuing a writ of mandamus to the University to appoint the appellant to the post of Lecturer in MCA and allow this appeal awarding exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the appellant payable by the University which is the least this Court can do for the reparation of the losses and agony the appellant has under gone all through these years, not only for being kept out of the job but also towards a part of the cost of litigation and the wear and tear due to litigation. University was directed to give effect to this order by appointing the appellant for the post of lecturer within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
1. Appeal by a person holding a post graduate degree in Computer Applications, i.e. M.C.A. and who had been certified by the very 1st respondent-Gulbarga University to have completed the post graduate degree in I Class with distinction and had respondent to an advertisement issued by the very University, inviting applications, among others, to the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Department as a teaching post, in response to the notification dated 22.5.1998 that had been issued by the University (marked as Annexure-A to the writ petition).
2. The appellant was not successful in his effort to get appointed as a lecturer in M.C.A. Department in the University, notwithstanding his qualification for the reason that the University chose to appoint the 3rd respondent, a person holding post graduate degree in Mathematics for this post as a person having qualification in the relevant subject and on the premise that 3rd respondent had a Master’s Degree in the ‘relevant subject.’
3. It was questioning such appointment issued in favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to the resolution at Item No.53 dated 17.4.1999 passed by the Syndicate of the University, appellant had filed the writ petition, W.P.No.19095/99.
4. The appellant contended in the writ petition that 3rd respondent was not a person answering the qualification which is the primary requirement for the post of Lecturer in MCA Dept. as indicated in the notification; that he (3rd respt.) had a post graduate degree in Mathematics and did not have a post graduate degree in Computer Applications, and on the other hand, petitioner possessing the required post graduate degree and having passed in I Class in distinction, should have been naturally appointed for the post.
5. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition and the version of the University, held that the words ‘relevant subject’ in the advertisement means qualification prescribed for the post as per U.G.C. norms, and did not necessarily mean only a post graduate degree in Computer Applications subject, but even a post graduate degree in Mathematics is also a subject which has to be understood as ‘relevant subject’ for the purpose of appointing a person as Lecturer in M.C.A. Course at the University, and such being the view of the Board of Appointment, an expert body for selecting suitable candidates who had considered the applications of the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent to the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Department of the University, the appointment pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate cannot be characterized as either illegal or suffering from any defect, and further being of the view that it will be very unreasonable to hold ‘relevant subject’ to mean only Masters Degree in Computer Applications, and it would be rather irrational to conclude that non-mentioning of the subject Mathematics as a subject would lead to the conclusion that it was only a post graduate degree in Computer Applications which was the qualification prescribed for a person applying for the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Course and in this view of the matter, dismissed the writ petition.
6. The appellant being aggrieved by this order dated 17.06.2004 has filed this appeal, not only for setting aside the impugned order but also for quashing the resolution of the Syndicate insofar as it relates to appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Lecturer in M.C.A. Department, and a further direction to consider his case for such appointment after eliminating the 3rd respondent as a person not having requisite qualification.
7. The matter had come up for orders on the application for condonation of delay in filing the application to recall the order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and on the application to recall. As per order dated 16.9.2009, we have passed orders on the applications, allowing them. Thereafter, the matter had been taken up for hearing as it was submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that on the e
