BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. K S GURUMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal Nos. 2782 and 2783 of 2002 are filed by the Bangalore university, the 1st respondent in W. P. Nos. 28860 and 28861 of 1995 and writ Appeal Nos. 2575 and 2576 of 2002 are filed by K. R. Venugopal, the 3rd respondent in the said writ petitions. The appeals are filed against the common order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions in part.

(2.) AS the cases and facts involved are common in these cross-appeals, for convenience necessary facts in W. A. Nos. 2782 and 2783 of 2002 filed by bangalore University are: the University Vishweshwaraiah College of Engineering, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'uvce') is the college maintained and run by the appellant-University. The said college has various branches of engineering courses. The 1st petitioner-K. S. Gurumurthy in W. P. Nos. 28860 and 28861 of 1995, was appointed as a Lecturer in the UVCE on 23-2-1983. The 1st petitioner has a Doctorate in Electronics. The 2nd petitioner-G. A. Nayak joined the service as Lecturer in UVCE on 4-10-1967 and on 1-7-1985 he was promoted to cadre of Reader, and was further promoted, under Merit promotion Scheme in the scale of Professor on 18-3-1994. Respondent 2-G. Narendra Kumar and respondent 3-Dr. Venugopal were also working as lecturers in the UVCE. The appellant-University by notification dated 8-1-1993 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 36 (4) of the karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, the 'act'), created a separate department of Computer Science and Engineering in the said college. Notification dated 12-10-1993 was published inviting applications for appointment to teaching posts in the said department. The Board of appointment after considering the qualification, eligibility, merits of the applicants, appointed respondents 3 and 4 herein as Readers by its order dated 11-12-1997. Respondents 1 and 2 herein who were working as Lecturer and reader respectively in the Department of Electronics filed W. P. Nos. 28860 and 28861 of 1995 seeking for a direction to consider their case for the posts of Reader and Professor respectively under Section 49 (9) of the Act. The said writ petition was allowed and the appointments made were quashed. Aggrieved, the appellant-University as well as appellant-respondent 4-K. R. Venugopal have filed these writ appeals as stated above.

(3.) SRI T. P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned Counsel for the appellant-University submits that the order of learned Single Judge is not sustainable as the same is passed on the basis that the selection and appointment of respondents 3 and 4 was made under Section 49 (9) of the Act, whereas the University has done the selection under Section 49 (1) to (8) of the Act and Section 49 (9) is only applicable to seniority-cum-merit promotion in the undergraduate colleges of the UVCE. The learned Counsel also submits that the learned Single Judge has also erred in al1owing the petitions as the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge as they do not belong to the newly created Department of Computer Science and engineering and their cases should be considered only in their respective departments. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the amendment application, which was filed on 2-7-2001 after a lapse of six years and the said application was opposed on the ground that appointment of appellant-respondent was made on 17-11-1995 after the interim order was vacated and even otherwise the notification calling for the applications was for the post of Reader in the Department of University and not the undergraduate college and so also no additional prayer can be granted in the writ petition. As a matter of fact the writ petition has become infructuous is and that apart the petitioners were regularly promoted as Readers on 27-2-1998. It is also submitted that the seniority of the petitioners would not be affected as the appointment of the third respondent would have been to the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in the University and not in the undergraduate college. Hence it is prayed that the order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case as it is opposed to the law. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Bangalore university and Another v Y. R. Satyanarayana Rao and Of hers and bangalore University v V. Ramachandran and Others. Sri D. N. Nanjunda Reddy with Sri Sachindra Karant, learned Counsels for the appellant-Dr. K. R. Venugopal in W. A. Nos. 2575 and 2576 of 2002, reiterated the argument that learned Single Judge has erred in holding that section 49 (9) made by the University was not attracted. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the writ when the petitioner had no locus standi and was not having requisite qualification. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.