JAGADEESH Vs. KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, KARNATAKA VETERINARY, ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, DR. A. SAHADEV AND DR. NAGARAJ G.N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition has sought for quashing the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as Professor of Veterinary, Gynecology, Obstetrics as well as Professor of Veterinary Anatomy dated 28 -7 -2011 issued by the first respondent University and also sought for issuance of writ of quo -warranto prohibiting the respondents 3 and 4 from holding the post of Professor in Veterinary, Gynecology as well as the Obstetrics as well as the Veterinary Anatomy. In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that he was initially appointed as Veterinary Extension Officer in the department of Animal and Husbandry. He had passed Master Degree in Pharmacology in the year 1998 -99 and Doctor of Philosophy in Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology in the year 2006 -07. He is a gold medalist in Doctor of Philosophy in Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology and also obtained Ph.D. Certificate in the year 2009. On the basis of the said qualification he was selected and appointed as an Associate Professor in Pharmacology and Toxicology on 13 -3 -2009. He claims that he belonged to Scheduled Caste category. The respondent -University invited applications for the post of Professors under the backlog category as per the notification dated 9 -7 -2010. The petitioner made two applications for the post of Professor in Veterinary Anatomy as well as to the post of Professor in Veterinary Gynecology and Obstetrics as he had acquired Ph.D. certificate in allied subjects. The qualification he had obtained is equivalent to the said subject. He has fulfilled the requirement of 10 years experience in teaching/research/extension. However, he was not called for the interview though the other candidates who are not eligible to be appointed as Professors were called. The petitioner was informed by the respondent -University that he does not possess Ph.D. in Veterinary Anatomy or Veterinary Gynecology and Obstetrics, hence he was not called for interview for the post of Professors. In view of non -consideration of the case of the petitioner, he filed W.P. No. 16323/2011 seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider his case for the post of Professor of Veterinary Anatomy or Veterinary Gynecology Obstetrics under the backlog category. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this court on 06 -07 -2011 holding that the qualification obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent to the post notified. Hence, he is not eligible to be appointed for the posts notified. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 15098/2011 which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this court reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the appointment of selected candidates for the post he had applied for. Further contended that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible to be appointed as Professors and appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 to the post of Professors of Veterinary Gynecology and Obstetric and Professor of Veterinary Anatomy respectively is contrary to the UGC norms. Hence, filed the present writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of 3rd and 4th respondent as Professors and also sought for issuance of writ of quo -warranto prohibiting respondents 3 and 4 from holding the posts of Professors in the aforementioned subjects.

(2.) IN pursuance to the notice issued by this court, the respondents entered appearance.

(3.) SRI . S. Yogananda, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent adopted the arguments of Sri. Krishna S. Dixit and contended that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as a Professor. Hence, he cannot challenge the selection of 3rd respondent for the post of Professor in Veterinary Gynecology and Obstetrics. The selection lias been made in accordance with the norms and regulations of Indian Council of Agriculture Research and the petitioner has no locus -standi to file the writ petition. Further, the Division Bench of this court has not reserved liberty to file a writ petition challenging the selection of respondents 3 and 4 and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.