K. PURUSHOTHAMA NAIK, S/O. SRI. K. BALAPPA NAIK Vs. THE MANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MANGALAGANGOTHRI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574199 AND THE BOARD OF APPOINTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner is said to have been appointed as a First Division Assistant with the respondent - University as on 29.12.1982. He was promoted as Senior Assistant as on 28.12.1990. It transpires that there was an amendment of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ' the KCSR' for brevity) and proviso to Rule 8 providing for backlog vacancies for the promotional quota with effect from 27.4.1978 was inserted. It is the petitioner's case that he was promoted as a Superintendent on 9.2.1993 pursuant to the said amendment. The amendment, however, was Subject to a challenge before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which, by a judgment dated 29.04.1994. set aside the amendment. In this backdrop, the petitioner had made a representation to promote him as Assistant Registrar against a Scheduled Caste vacancy. This not having been considered, he had filed a Writ petition seeking prohibition against the Syndicate of the University from promoting one Abdul Kareem who was promoted against a vacancy earmarked for a Scheduled Caste vacancy and thereby the petitioner being deprived of the same, the petition in W.P. No. 20125/1994, was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law. It transpires that as on 6.11.1995, that the said Abdul Kareem, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted against the Scheduled Caste vacancy subject to the result of a Special Leave Petition which had been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal, in Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9132 of 1994, pending before the Apex Court, The petitioner in turn, was also promoted as Assistant Registrar on independent charge, subject to the result of the very special leave petition, It thereafter transpires that the petitioner was transferred to the FMKM College at Madikeri as Assistant Registrar. The petitioner had challenged the order of transfer by way of a writ petition before this 'Court in W.P. No. 2884/1996, which was ultimately dismissed with certain observations. By judgment dated 24.01.1997, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and reversed the order of the Administrative Tribunal upholding the amendment to the General Recruitment Rules. Consequently, by an order dated 19.03.1997, the petitioner was stripped the post of Assistant Registrar and was demoted to the post of Superintendent. The post of Assistant Registrar was retransferred to Mangalore University's Headquarters and one Smt. Akku was placed in independent charge of the post of Assistant Registrar under Rule 32 of the KCSR. The petitioner challenged his demotion in yet another writ petition in W.P. No. 7772/1997, which was rejected, however, with an observation that his case for promotion should be considered in accordance with law, by an order dated 19.06.1997. On 24.06.1997, consequent upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition, the State Government framed certain guidelines to give effect to the judgment regarding promotions to the backlog vacancies, a copy of which is at Annexure -"H" to the writ petition. It transpires that Abdul Kareem, a junior to the petitioner was promoted to a Scheduled Caste vacancy after converting the post.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the following grounds. Admittedly, there was a vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Registrar which was earmarked for a Scheduled Caste candidate and petitioner was placed on independent charge undisputedly, with effect from 6.11.1995. The petitioner, incidentally, having been stripped of the post and having been continued as Superintendent and his junior having been regularly promoted as Assistant Registrar and the petitioner having all along pleaded his innocence in so far as certain allegations having been made, against him and having been exonerated, the petitioners eligibility of promotion would date back to 6.11.1995 which is said to be unjustly denied to the petitioner. Incidentally, the circumstance, that his junior Smt. Akku has been promoted regularly as Assistant Registrar would not be relevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned and it is his independent right which would be relevant for consideration, that has been overlooked by the respondent unreasonably, in holding that the eligible date of the petitioner could be only with reference to the eligible date of promotion given to Smt. Akku which was the post held by the petitioner earlier and it is with reference to the said post the eligibility date is sought to be fixed by the respondent which is clearly an erroneous reasoning and in this regard, he would submit that even if it is to be accepted that the petitioner is entitled to the eligibility date namely 17.11.1999, the petitioner claims that monetary benefits would have to be paid to him at least from 17.11.1999 which is the date on which he is held entitled to his promotion. This having been continued, petitioner would contend that he has not only been denied promotion but also the monetary benefits that would naturally flow from the date of being conferred the eligibility for promotion. It is this which is sought to be emphasised with reference to two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed A, Vs. Nizam 2005 SCC (L and S) 62 and Smt. Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, JT (1995) 9 SC 358 .