The court held that regulations under which the petitioner was appointed did not require experience to be counted from registration, thereby restoring his position as Principal.

-

ORDER :

R. NATARAJ, J.

The petitioner, who has appeared in person, has sought for an order to quash the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.14/2020 dismissing the appeal filed by him under Sections 130 and 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1983'). He has sought for a direction to the respondent No.2 to allow him to continue as a Principal. He has also sought for a declaration that the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020, which came into effect from 01.11.2020 applied only to fresh graduates of Architecture and that it does not apply to those who are already appointed as per the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 1983').

2. Though the facts pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition are jumbled up, a reading of the writ petition discloses the following;

(i) that the petitioner completed his Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) in the year 1989 from BMS College, Bengaluru. He later completed his Master of Architecture (M.Arch.) in the year 1992 from the University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA. The petitioner contends that the University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA, is a University recognized by the Council of Architecture for imparting education in Master's Degree in Architecture under Architects Act, 1972 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 1972'). The petitioner contends that he was appointed as a Principal of respondent No.2 on 09.06.2018 under the norms prescribed under the Regulations, 1983. He contends that without any notice, he was demoted as an Associate Professor on 10.02.2020. It appears that respondent No.3 had addressed a communication dated 10.05.2019 to respondent No.2 stating that the petitioner did not possess the minimum experience to hold the post of a Principal as per norms. It therefore, put the respondent No.2 on notice as to why the intake in respondent No.2 in B.Arch degree course be reduced from 40 to 30. The respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 23.10.2019 to respondent No.3 requesting it to waive off the condition regarding experience of the petitioner as he had 30 years experience in field, research, technology and academics. However, the respondent No.3 was in no mood to accept the petitioner's service as a Principal at respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore challenged the communication dated 10.05.2019 in W.P.No.9242/2020. The said writ petition was disposed off on 15.09.2020 reserving liberty to question the action of respondent No.2 in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter, filed Appeal No.14/2020 under Sections 130 and 131 of the Act of 1983 before the respondent No.1.

--

(ii) The respondent No.1 held proceedings and passed an order dated 04.11.2023 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner contends that as per the Regulations, 1983, the eligibility for the post of Principal was a B.Arch. or equivalent with 10 years experience in Teaching/Research/Professional work, experience of guiding research or M.Arch. or equivalent with 8 years of experience in Teaching/Research/Professional work. He contends that the equivalent qualification meant any such qualification as recognized by the Council of Architecture for registration as an Architect under Section 25 of the Act of 1972. He contends that he had nearly 30 years of experience including teaching, work experience, technology and practice and therefore, he was qualified to be appointed as a Principal. However, respondent No.3 relied upon the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2017 (henceforth referred to as 'Regulations, 2017') to notify respondent No.2 that the petitioner did not possess requisite experience as he was registered as an Architect with respondent No.3