S GUNDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) readers ; should be a holder of a degree not lower than a ii class master degree in the respective subject of a university established by low in India or any other qualification recognised by the government as equivalent thereto. Or should be holder of doctorate in the respective subject of a university established by law in India or any other qualification recognised by the government as equivalent thereto. Should have served as lecturer for not less than eight years in the same college/management. Note: pass class master degree holders appointed as lecturers before 30th September 1977 are also eligible, provided they have improved their qualification by acquiring m. Phil degree in the subject. Professors . Should be a holder of a it class masters degree in the respective subject of a university established by law in India or any other qualification recognised by the government as equivalent thereto and should have experience of not than ten years in teaching the respective subject to degree classes. Or should be a holder of a doctorate in the respective subject of university established by law in India or any other qualification recognised by government as equivalent thereto ; and should have experience of not less than seven years in teaching the respective subject to degree classes. Pass class master's degree holders appointed as lecturers before 30th September 1977 are also eiigible provided they have improved their qualification by holding m. Phil degree in the subject." from the above it is clear that persons who have merely passed a master's degree and who were appointed as lecturers before 30th September 1977 were also eligible for promotion as readers and professors, as the case may be, provided they had improved their qualification by acquiring m. Phil degree in the subject. Aggrieved by the said government Order, the appellants and others made representation to the education minister on 19-11-1981 as per Annexure-D , and a further represenation on 22-1-1982 as per Annexure-F , requesting to waive the condition prescribed in the said govt. Order requiring the acquisition of m. Phil degree for promotion as readers and professors in aided colleges. However, nothing ensued out of the same. Therefore, several writ petitions were filed including w.ps. 14567/82 & 13867/84 filed by the appellants. They came to be r. 19 dealt with under a common judgment. The points raised before the learned single judge were :- (i) introduction of the additional qualification was discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of art. 14 of the Constitution since the acquisition of m. Phil degree was not insisted upon as far as the i or ii class master's degree holders are concerned. (ii) some of the petitioners were on the verge of retirement and some were awaiting promotions shortly, and at that stage to deprive them of their promotions would amount to depriving a vested right, and (iii) the universities in the state of Karnataka were not imparting m. Phil degree aud therefore ii is impossible to acquire such a qualification. To go outside the state and acquire the said degree the petitioners may not be deputed by the managements. The learned single judge on a consideration of the entire matter, rejected these submissions and came to the conclusion that there was no merit whatever and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. Thus, these appeals have been preferred before us.

(2.) sri. S. Vasantha kumar, learnedcounsel for the appellants, reiterates the same points before us and contends that the imposition of such a condition so as to render them eligible for promotion is not only harsh but also impossible of performance, and it does not take note of the realities of the situation. As the appellants are in the evening of their career they are adversely affected by this condition.

(3.) we have already extracted annexures i and ii to the government orderdated 3-10-1981. A reading of the same would clearly reveal that normally only a ii class master's degree holder alone would have been entitled for consideration for promotion as a reader or professor. But, a note came to be appended so as to afford an opportunity to persons like the appellants who had obtained a mere pass in master's degree in the respective subjects. Therefore, first and foremost, it must be viewed as a concession. It should also be remembered that the state need not have extended such a concession at all. However, it did not w.int to bo harsh to parsons like the appellants. Why we are laying little stress on this aspect of the matter is, we heard arguments to the effect that it would constitute discrimination. First of all, where for attaining excellence of education if certain qualifications are prescribed it cannot amount to discrimination at ail. In fact, Mr. Vasanthakumar learned counsel for the appellants, did not seriously dispute that the state has the power to prescribe such a qualification. However, what he would seriously urge is, there are practical difficulties in the way of the appellants acquiring this qualification because in the state of Karnataka it is not possible to acquire m. Phii degree. First and foremost, as the learned single judge held, this is factually incorrect. Even assuming this to be correct, on that score it cannot ever be urged that excellence of education cannot be attained by the state, as was observed by lyndon bains johnson :