P DEEPA SHENOY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, the petitioners claim that, in pursuance of a notification dated 21.06.2005 issued by the respondent - University inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post for Professor, Reader and Lecturer in Computer Science, petitioners applied for the post of Professor in Computer Science. Since no recruitment took place in pursuance of the same, another notification was issued on 08.08.2007. Both the petitioners were directed to attend the interview on 10.03.2008 and 08.08.2007 respectively. Though the interview process completed, however, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, their results were not announced and similarly interviewed candidates' results were announced and they were issued appointment orders also, hence, the petitioners approached this court in W.P. Nos. 18708/2009 and 18709/2009. This Court by order dated 23rd February 2010 in both the writ petitions issued a direction interalia directing the respondent - University to announce the result of the interview held on 10.03.2008, for the posts in Computer Science within a time frame of four weeks from the date of said order. This order was called in question by the University in Writ Appeal Nos. 1187/2010 c/w 1188/2010. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.06.2010 modified the order of the learned Single Judge, and directed the University that the result of the interview conducted by the Board of appointment be kept in a sealed cover and place before the Syndicate of the University to take further action in consonance with the provisions of Section 53 sub-section (7) of the said Act. Thereafter, the Syndicate met on 30.07.2010, however, no resolution was passed as there was a difference of opinion amongst the members of the Syndicate and again on 21.07.2011 when the Syndicate met, Syndicate resolved to defer the issue of appointment orders, as the list of candidates selected by the Board of appointment was not in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana. Since no progress was made as to the appointment of the petitioners, petitioners had filed the contempt of court case, as the direction issued by the Division Bench was not complied. In C.C.C. No. 427/2011 (Civil), the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 02.08.2011 directed the petitioner to challenge the action of the Syndicate in appropriate proceedings.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the State Government, suo-moto considered the case and by its order dated 02.09.2011 annulled the Syndicate resolution dated 21.07.2011, and by its communication dated 02.09.2011, in view of annulling of the Syndicate resolution since the appointment orders were not issued, the Government directed the University to take immediate action to issue the appointment orders to both the petitioners as well as five others to the post of Professor in the University Visveswaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore University, Bangalore, within seven days. When despite the Government direction, no action was taken, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for necessary direction.

(3.) Sri. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended that, under the provisions of the Karnataka Universities Act, if there is any difference between the recommendation made by the Board of Appointment and the Syndicate, under Section 53(7) of Act, the Syndicate has a power to refer the matter back to the Board of Appointment, however, the Syndicate had not referred the matter back to the Board of Appointment, however, the Government suomotu took cognizance of the difference of opinion between the Board and the Syndicate and decided the matter, such decision under Section 53(7) proviso of the Act becomes final. Hence, in view of the Government having taken suomotu action and its decision has become final, the University is bound to act accordingly. However, the University without any justification has not issued the order of appointment. There is no reason for the University to deny the appointments to the petitioners.