BASAWARAJ REVANASIDDAPPA GURAGOL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 25424/2004 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against Annexure-'k' notification dated 10. 1. 2003 containing the final seniority list of the Microbiology Department in the karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli-second respondent herein, ranking the third respondent Dr. Shobha D. Nadgir above the petitioner Dr. Basawaraj Revanasiddappa Guragol and also the appointment of the fourth respondent Dr. Chadrashekar as Chairman of the department of Microbiology. Both the challenges were rejected by the learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Writ petitioner has filed this Writ Appeal.

(2.) THERE cannot be any inter se seniority between the appellant and the fourth respondent Dr. Chandrasekhar. The appellant was recruited as Associate Professor and continues to be in the cadre of Associate Professor, whereas, the fourth respondent was recruited as a Professor and continues to be in the cadre of Professor. Hence the learned single Judge was right in holding that the petitioner's challenge against the appointment of the fourth respondent is misconceived.

(3.) THE appellant and the third respondent were recruited to the cadre of Associate Professor in the same selection process. According to Bye-law 14 of the Karnataka Institute of Medical sciences, Hubli, when a post is filled up by direct recruitment through open advertisement, the selection Committee shall meet and examine the credentials of all the persons who are to be considered for the posts and the Committee shall prepare panel of names and recommend the name in the order of merit. When vacancy occurs in any post owing to death, resignation or any other reason within six months of the incumbent joining duty, the appointing authority can select the next candidate, if any, recommended by the Committee. Admittedly, the direct recruitment of the appellant and the third respondent was made through open advertisement. Therefore, the selection Committee should have necessarily prepared a panel of names and recommended the names in the order of merit. The third respondent filed a state of objections, in which, it was categorically stated that the seniority list was prepared as per the placement given at the time of selection and that as per the selection list, the name of respondent No. 3 was shown above the name of the petitioner and the same was not questioned by the petitioner. The above statement was contested by the appellant in his rejoinder, wherein, he has stated that the averment of the third respondent that her name was shown above the petitioner in the merit list or selection list is totally false and baseless and that the selection of the petitioner and the third respondent was not on merit and that no merit list was either prepared or published. Obviously, the above claim of the appellant/petitioner could not have been accepted as the bye-laws require the preparation of a selection list by the Selection Committee and recommendation of names in the order of merit. Since the appellant had not raised any contention in the Writ Petition that he was placed above the third respondent in the selection list/merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, the second respondent did not get an opportunity to either admit or deny such an allegation. At any rate, the appellant/petitioner did not claim even in his rejoinder that he was placed above the third respondent in the selection list/merit list prepared by the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are inclined to accept the contention of the third respondent that in the selection list/merit list, she was placed above the appellant. The impugned order of the learned single Judge cannot be held to be vitiated only on account of the non-production of the selection list by the second respondent.