Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
P.KRISHNA BHAT, KRISHNA S.DIXIT, JJ.
The University Of Agricultural Sciences - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.100030, 100076 OF 2022 (S-RES)
Decided on : 14-07-2022
University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 - Section 24(iv) to (ix), 5(2) , 8(1) , 14(1) , 16 , 67(1) ,26 and 38 - Selection & appointment to the posts of officers - Recruitment process for selection & appointment to posts of officers - Alleged governmental interference in affairs of university, reserving liberty to initiate recruitment process de novo - Board of Management proceedings which prescribed qualifications/conditions arguably stipulated at the instance have also been voided by learned Single Judge appeal by University - Farm University initiated recruitment process for selection & appointment to posts of officers enlisted under section 24(iv) to (ix) of University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 Recruitment Notification qualifications & conditions as recommended by High Level Committee - Petitioner - Teachers’ Association had staked their claim for appointment. However, not being happy with prescription of certain guidelines & scorecard whereby applications were called for posts in question, they had knocked at doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to recruitment process in a wholesale way inter alia on ground that could not have prescribed qualifications & conditions for appointment - Learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the entire recruitment process finding fault with the alleged governmental interference in affairs of university, reserving liberty to initiate recruitment process de novo – Held, Petitioner is only an association of teachers. Ordinarily, in matters of recruitment, it is only aggrieved candidate, who can complain against arguable illegalities in process. Others cannot. Teachers’ Association of the kind cannot espouse the individual/personal cause of its members - Espousal of such causes is not shown to have been authorised by any statute like the Trade Unions Act, 1926 & Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - It is not that the Member Teachers of Association are a vulnerable section of society, who on their own could not come before the Court to lay a challenge to the recruitment process. Nor are they poor & disabled and espousal was warranted - Tenants or other groups with common interest but such group cannot move writ application - No aspect of the representative law has been changing more rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent years, but on the basis of the law relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order - Writ petitions are not maintainable – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
The intra court Appeal in W.A. No.100030/2022 (S-RES) inter alia by the University and the companion appeal with request for leave by the aspiring candidates in W.A. No.100076/2022 (S-RES), call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.12.2021, whereby private Respondents’ W.P.No.104236/2021 (S-RES) having been favoured, the subject recruitment process has been set at naught reserving liberty to the University to initiate a fresh one.
2. The Private Respondents being represented by their counsel and the State through the learned Government Advocate resists the appeals making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. However, he makes legal submissions in justification of the Government Order (hereinafter G.O.) dated 23.11.2018, which too has been quashed by the learned Single Judge.
II. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:
(i) The Appellant - Farm University initiated recruitment process for selection & appointment to the posts of officers enlisted under section 24(iv) to (ix) of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 (hereinafter ‘2009 Act’) vide Recruitment Notification dated 15.07.2019. Certain qualifications & conditions as recommended by the High Level Committee (hereinafter ‘HLC’) and in terms of G.O. dated 23.11.2018 were incorporated in the said notification.
(ii) The 1st Writ Petitioner - Mr. Ramanagouda Patil and assertedly some members of the 2nd Petitioner - Teachers’ Association had staked their claim for appointment. However, not being happy with the prescription of certain guidelines & scorecard whereby applications were called for the posts in question, they had knocked at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the recruitment process in a wholesale way inter alia on the ground that the Govt. could not have prescribed the qualifications & conditions for the appointment. The petition was stoutly opposed by the university by filing the Statement of Objections.
(iii) A learned Single Judge of this Court quashed the entire recruitment process finding fault with the alleged governmental interference in the affairs of university, reserving liberty to initiate the recruitment process de novo. The Board of Management (hereinafter ‘BOM’) proceedings which prescribed the qualifications/conditions arguably stipulated at the instance of govt. vide G.O. dated 23.11.2018 have also been voided by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal by the University. The aspirants/participants in the subject recruitment process are also before this Court in the companion appeal against the same order, of course craving leave, contending that though they were not parties eo nominee to the subject Writ Petition, they too are aggrieved. Leave needs to be and accordingly is granted, since prima facie they have a litigable interest, and no prejudice will be occasioned to any of the parties, by such grant.
III. THE ISSUES DEBATED AT THE BAR:
|
| Whether the Government Order dated 28.11.2018 directing the Farm Universities to adopt common yardsticks for appointment of their officers, as prescribed in the Annexures thereto is valid…? |
| (ii) | Whether the subject Government Order amounts to unjustifiable interference in the affairs of university so as to vitiate the very recruitment process? |
| (iii) | Whether the 1st Writ Petitioner Prof. Ramanagouda Patil having participated in the recruitment process half way through could have turned around to challenge the same…? |
| (iv) | Whether the 2nd Writ Petitioner Association of Teachers had any locus standii to knock at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the recruitment process…? |
IV. OUR EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER:
Both the sides have made extensive submissions placing their own interpretation on the provisions of the 2009 Act and pressing into service c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
