VENKATARAMANA SUBRAYA HEGDE Vs. REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for Judicial Review of an order passed by the Karnataka University, Dharwad vide Annexure 'D' appointing 4th respondent herein to the post of Reader in Post Graduate Gandhian Studies in preference to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Gandhian Studies, Karnataka University, Dharwad since January 1979 and that he has also been in charge of the Department since April 1982. The Karnataka University invited applications to fill up certain posts among one of which was the post of a Reader in Gandhian Studies. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the qualifications prescribed for the appointment of the petitioner as a Reader in the University. Special protection was given to a member of 'Backward Special Group' subject to fulfilment of certain qualifications. According to the advertisement, a parson belonging to the 'Backward Special Group' should have a consistently good academic record with a first or high second class with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. It was also required that there should be evidence of such a person being actively engaged in Research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials. The other qualifications are that the candidate must have five years of experience of teaching or Research, provided that atleast 3 of these years were as lecturer or in an equivalent position. However, the conditions prescribed were subject to relaxation in the case of a candidate possessing outstanding research work. In regard to appointment as a Reader in Gandhian Studies it was specifically stated that in addition to the above qualifications for Readers, a candidate must have specialised in the Gandhian Studies. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent who was selected does not possess most of the qualifications prescribed. The allegation is that the 4th respondent does not belong to 'Backward Special Group*. He is a Roman Catholic priest incardinaiated to the Archdiocese of Ernakulam which is a unit of Church of India. According to the petitioner, a Christian after in cardinalation ceases to be a member of his family and the guardian for all his needs and wants would be the Cardinal Archbishop of Ernakulam. As a priest, the 4th respondent has the benefit of daily mass stipend. It appears that 4th respondent submitted an application claiming to belong to the 'Backward Special Group' wherein he has stated that his father is an actual cultivator owning only one acre of land andthat he has no other income. The total annual income declared is Rs. 1,200/-. He has also mentioned that he has no other source of income. In order to substantiate that the 4th respondent belongs to 'Backward Special Group' he is required to produce a certificate from the competent revenue authority viz., the Tahsildar of the local area where the land is situated. However, it appears that the 4th respondent chose to produce the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dharwad whereas the land stated to belong to the 4th respondent and his father is situate in Kerala. The emphasis is laid by the petitioner on the point that the relevant criterion for determination of the question of eligibility for appointment against the quota of 'Backward Special Group' is not the caste basis but the income basis considering not only the candidate's own income but also the income of the parents and if either of the parents is dead the income of the legal guardian. The petitioner has specifically alleged that the 4th respondent is receiving a sum of Rs. 1,400/- per month as stipend since 1-10-1980 being the value of the Associateship as evidenced from the letter of the University-Grants- Commission addressed to the Registrar, Karnataka University, Dharwad. It is stated that the 4th respondent does not fall within the category of socially and economically backward person since his income itself is in excess of the minimum prescribed to get eligibility for consideration as against the quota earmarked for 'Backward Special Group.

(3.) Apart from this, it is pointed out that from the fact that 4th respondent has been under the care and patronage of his legal guardian viz. Cardinal Archbishop of Ernakulam, and he cannot by any means be described as a economically backward parson. The petitioner has made a serious allegation against the 4th respondent that whereas 4th respondent has claimed in his application that he is a National Fellow, the records show that the University Grants Commission has granted him a Research Associateship. Apart from all these deficiencies and inadequacies, the 4th respondent does not possess either 5 years teaching experience nor has he put in 3 years service as a lecturer. In the first place, he has no doctorate in Gandhian Studies at all. The doctorate that was awarded to him was for a thesis in Karma and Rebirth. At the same time, it is contended that the petitioner is the only candidate who has earned PHD thesis exclusively on Gandhian Studies entitJed 'Gandhi's Philosophy of Law and that the petitioner has the required teaching experience and further he satisfies all the qualifications required for the appointment of a Reader.