P. M. PARAMESHWARAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition which is a public interest litigation, the petitioners seek a writ of quo warranto for ouster of 6th respondent from the post of Lecturer and consequently, the Registrar of the second respondent-Bangalore University and also seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the Bangalore University.

(2.) The 6th respondent was appointed as a Research Assistant on 18.10.1988. The minimum qualification for the purposes of Lecturer as per Item No. (3) A to Schedule-I of the notification issued by the University Grants Commission is a good academic record with atleast 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's Degree level in the relevant subject. Further, the candidate besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by the University Grants Commission, CSIR or similar test accredited by University Grants Commission. No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in a University in a subject if he does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications for the appropriate subject. Any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University concerned with the prior approval of the University Grants Commission. When the second respondent published a statute called "Conversion of posts of Research Assistants to Lecturers and Abolition of Vacant posts of Research Assistants in various Departments of Bangalore University", they called upon the heads of the various Departments to furnish particulars of all the Research Assistants. Those who possessed the qualification could be converted as Lecturers. The Chairman of the Department of Sociology addressed a letter dated 10.12.1993 furnishing the particulars of the 6th respondent. He stated that the 6th respondent has obtained only 53.1% in the M.A. degree examination. Moreover, he has not passed the NET examination. Hence, he will not be eligible if the guidelines are strictly enforced. Pursuant to a resolution of the Syndicate of the second respondent in its meeting held on 9.2.1994, the 6th respondent was kept under suspension by an order dated 14.2.1994 which was challenged by him by way of a writ petition before this Court. The Board of Appointment of second respondent in its meeting held on 12.3.1994 recommended for absorption of 6th respondent as a Lecturer of Sociology and they also recommended for relaxation of minimum percentage of marks of 55% at post graduate level, in view of his service as Research Assistant for five years which was in complete violation of proviso to paragraph (2) of the guidelines of University Grants Commission wherein prior approval of University Grants Commission was mandatory. By an order dated 19.5.1994, the suspension order was revoked and the 6th respondent was reinstated as Research Assistant. By virtue of the aforesaid resolution passed by the Syndicate on 13.6.1994, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Sociology by order dated 16.6.1994. However, the said order was modified on 4.8.1994 modifying the conditions of absorption. The said order modifying the conditions of absorption was challenged by the 6th respondent by way of writ petition which came to be rejected.

(3.) In the year 2002, one L. Vasudeva Murthy, a member of the Academic Council of the second respondent complained that the absorption of some of the Research Assistants as Lecturers was contrary to law. Then a verification was conducted. Though the 6th respondent did not possess the requisite qualification, no action was taken against the 6th respondent. The second respondent issued a notification dated 30.09.2002 inviting applications to fill up backlog posts in various Departments including the post of Professor in the Department of Sociology. The 6th respondent applied for the said post. In the meanwhile, the 6th respondent was again kept under suspension because of the resolution passed on 7.7.2007 by the Syndicate pending enquiry into certain irregularities including non-deposit of Rs. 19.58 lakhs collected from Study Centres and required to be deposited on 7.11.2005. However, the State Bank of Mysore later found the 37 cheques amounting to Rs. 14,91,000/- had become stale and was sent for revalidation. They were cleared on 12.7.2007. Dr. R. Venkata Subbaiah had filed writ petition in W.P. No. 10873/2003 for a direction not to select the 6th respondent to the post of Professor. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the 6th respondent was selected as a Professor and accordingly was appointed on 18.6.2003. Therefore the writ petition was amended seeking for cancellation of the said order appointing him as a Professor. The learned Single Judge after hearing all the parties was of the view that the 6th respondent did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as a Professor. Therefore, by an order dated 31.7.2007, the appointment of 6th respondent as a Professor was quashed. Aggrieved by the said order, the 6th respondent preferred a Writ Appeal No. 1416/2007. The Division Bench after hearing the parties affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. Consequent to the said order of the Division Bench, the 6th respondent was relieved from the post of Professor on 7.8.2007 with effect from 1.8.2007. The 6th respondent challenged the said order before the Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing all the parties allowed Civil Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench by its order dated 03.10.2008. It held that the 6th respondent had satisfied the qualifications required for the appointment to the post of Professor in the Bangalore University. Therefore, it directed the University to reinstate the 6th respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. After the said order, 6th respondent had been reinstated by the University.