C.BASAVARAJU Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Professor of Law, on 12.07.2007, in the Department of Studies in Law, Manasa Gangothri, Mysore. The appointment was on probation for a period of two years. By a communication dated 25.01.2014 vide Annexure -E, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to take necessary measures to declare his probationary period with effect from 12.07.2009. The 3rd respondent having sent a communication bearing No.ED 03 UMV 2011, dated 28.01.2011 vide Annexure -D, petitioner was informed on 01.02.2014 vide Annexure -F, that no person shall be eligible for promotion (CAS) unless he has satisfactorily completed the period of probation in the post held by him and thus, the University could not declare the petitioner's probation period as having completed satisfactorily. Assailing Annexures -D and F and asking for a declaration that the petitioner is deemed to be confirmed in the post of Professor of Law pursuant to his appointment order dated 12.07.2007, with effect from 11.07.2009 and for extending all consequential benefits, this writ petition was filed. Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned advocate contended that the appointment order issued to the petitioner shows the period of probation as two years and the petitioner having completed the said period on 11.07.2009, having maintained excellent service record and there being no departmental examination prescribed for the post and the probationary period also having not been extended and Mysore University Statute also not providing automatic continuation of the probationary period beyond two years, petitioner is deemed to have been confirmed in the post of 'Professor of Law on completion of period of two years shown in the appointment order vide Annexure -B. He further contended that the 3rd respondent has no authority under law to issue direction to the petitioner's employer - University, not to declare the probationary period on the ground that someone else has questioned the selection and appointment to the posts in different faculties and even otherwise, the Government having appointed one man Commission of enquiry to examine the irregularities alleged to have been committed while making appointment to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, the Commission having not inducted any authorities/persons so far as selection and appointment to the post of Professor in Law, the direction issued on 28.01.2011 vide Annexure -D by the Government is unsustainable, more particularly, on account of the appointment of the petitioner having remained unquestioned by any person. He submitted that the Mysore University Employees' (General Recruitment) Statutes, 1983 as per the Rule 14 prescribes maximum period of probation to be two years and after expiry of the period of probation, the petitioner ought to have been confirmed. He concluded that the impugned action of the respondents being arbitrary and illegal, interference is called for.

(2.) SMT . Prathima, learned HCGP submitted that, if the University sends the factual report, a decision would be taken and the respondents 1 and 2 would be informed of the outcome of the consideration, without any delay.

(3.) PERUSED the writ petition record.