BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. DALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the Bangalore University. In this appeal, the appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 6th February 2003 made in Writ Petition No. 5170 of 2000. The 1st respondent in this appeal filed the writ petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 5th november 2001, issued by the appellant-University, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-B to the writ petition, informing the respondent that he would attain the age of superannuation on 30th September 2002 as he would be attaining 58 years on that date. It was the case of the respondent in the writ petition that since the respondent was in the teaching cadre, he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years and the notification-Annexure-B issued by the University notifying that he would attain the age of superannuation on 30th September 2002 on the premise that he was not in a teaching cadre is totally unsustainable in law. The appellant-University disputed the claim of the respondent that he was in the teaching cadre before the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the University that since the respondent was initially appointed as a laboratory assistant and subsequently he was promoted to the cadre of workshop superintendent and the post held by him cannot be treated as a leaching post, he was not entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years as the staff who are holding teaching post alone are entitled to continue till 60 years.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, in the impugned order took the view that the respondent was in the leaching cadre and as such entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years in terms of Statute 21. 2 of Bangalore University Statutes (hereinafter referred to as 'the statutes' ). In the light of the said conclusion, he quashed the notification-Annexure-B issued by the University so far as the respondent is concerned. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by us earlier, the University has presented this appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition and the pendency of the appeal, the respondent was continued in service and having attained the age of 60 years on 26th September 2004, he also retired from service on the said date.

(3.) SRI Ravi Malimath, learned counsel for the appellant challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge strongly urged that since the respondent was appointed to a non-teaching cadre, it is not permissible for the respondent to contend that he was a teacher within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Karnataka Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Statute 21. 1 of the Statutes. In support of his submission, Sri malimath, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. K. Pattamashetty, ( (2004 )6 SCC685 and drew our attention to paragraph 15 of the judgment.