A THIMMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Single Judge of this Court who found inconsistency in the judgments rendered in W.P.No. 23322/2001 dated 6.10.2011, which was affirmed in writ appeal by a Division Bench in W.A.No. 7537-7538/2001 dated 1.7.2002 and W.A.No. 3693/2002 dated 1.4.2005, was of the view that these inconsistent orders of Division Bench of this Court require to be resolved by a Coordinate Bench or a larger Bench. Therefore, he directed that the writ petition be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to obtain appropriate orders. Accordingly, by an order dated 24.11.2011 the learned Chief Justice has directed that this writ petition be placed before this Full Bench. The Government of Karnataka passed an order vide No. ED 88 UNI 88, Bangalore, dated 30.3.1990 sanctioning the revised 1986 UGC pay scales to the teachers in the I Grade (Degree) Colleges i.e., Government Colleges and those aided by the Government as per the Grant-in-aid Code in the Directorate of Collegiate Education w.e.f., 1.1.1986. Consequent upon the introduction of the revised UGC pay scales, the existing staff pattern in the aforesaid Degree Colleges underwent complete change. In terms of the aforesaid Government Order the college teachers will consist of 3 cadres, namely. Lecturer, Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Selection Grade) with the pay scales attached to such cadres. A provision was made in the Government Order for Career Advancement. Prior to the passing of the said order a single seniority list was maintained by these Colleges and the posts of Readers and Professors were purely on promotional basis i.e., Lecturers. Readers and Professors. After the passing of aforesaid Government Order, it came to the notice of the Government that the management of these Colleges have not properly given effect to the Government Order insofar as the seniority in service is concerned. Therefore, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education issued a circular, dated 16.1.2011 setting out how in the Private Aided Institutions the seniority list is to be prepared and how the Government Order, dated 30.3.1990 has to be given effect to.

(2.) The said circular was challenged by one Sri A. Thimmegowda and others in W.P.No. 5211/2001 c/w 23332/2001 before this Court contending that in terms of the Government Order a separate seniority list is to be prepared in respect of three cadres, namely. Lecturer. Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Selection Grade). Accepting this contention, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 6.10.2001 issued a direction to the Colleges to prepare and publish the seniority list in respect of each of the cadres such as Lecturer. Lecturer (Senior Scale) and Lecturer (Selection Grade) and thereafter, select a person for appointment to the post of Principal according to the Rules and Statutes of the Mysore University. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by Indiramma, the 3rd respondent in the said writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court as her position as Principal was affected. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 7484 and 7599-7600/2001, which was disposed of on 1.7.2002, found fault with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that only Ph.D., degree holder should be selected as the Principal, the senior most Selection Grade Lecturer even without Ph.D. can be made as the incharge Principal till the seniority is finalised as per the order of the learned Single Judge. Rest of the order was affirmed. In other words, the direction to prepare 3 separate seniority lists of these 3 cadres was not disturbed. When the college in terms of the aforesaid direction prepared the seniority list of 3 cadres and sent it for approval to the department, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned communication directing the college to prepare the seniority list in terms of its earlier circular dated 16.1.2001. Challenging the said communication, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge at the time of hearing this writ petition was confronted with a judgment of yet another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 3693/2002, which was disposed of on 1.4.2005, which has taken a diametrically contrary position which reads as under:-