R. MUNI REDDY Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts lie within a narrow compass. The petitioner joined service of the Bangalore University (for short, 'the University') during 1985 as a temporary Lecturer in Department of Physical Education and was regularised by an Order dated 21.03.1994 and earned promotion as Reader/Associate Professor on 21.03.1998. On 08.09.2004, in response to a Notification issued by the University regarding vacancy of the Director, Physical Education, petitioner made an application and having been selected, was appointed on 04.08.2006 vide Annexure-G, as Director of Physical Education in Bangalore University. A Notification having been issued with regard to retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years and the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 07.11.2013 vide Annexure-S, contending that he is entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years and the University having issued a Notification dated 04.01.2014 vide Annexure-V, this writ petition was filed, to quash the said Notification and to direct the University to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 62 years i.e., up to 31.03.2016 and grant consequential benefits.

(2.) Government of Karnataka by its proceeding dated 05.04.1991 extended revised UGC pay scales to Librarians and Physical Education personnel working in the Universities and the petitioner got revised UGC pay scale by an order dated 08.02.1993. In support of the prayer made in this writ petition, petitioner relies on the Judgment rendered in the case of BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. DALAPPA AND ANOTHER, 2005 ILR(Kar) 4007. Respondent-University, on the other hand contends that the Director, Physical Education, does not belong to teaching faculty and the retirement age applicable to the non-teaching staff is 60 years and the petitioner having been appointed as Director of Physical Education, under S.57 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 has no lien on the post held by him earlier and hence, has no legal right to claim the benefit of enhancement of the age applicable to the teachers i.e., superannuation age of 62 years. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C.K. PATTAMASHETTY, 2004 6 SCC 685 and it was submitted by Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-V does not warrant interference.

(3.) Annexures-M, N, P and R, when perused, it becomes clear that the petitioner is also doing teaching work in the University and the said documents have not been contradicted nor any explanation offered by the respondent University, to hold otherwise.