RAVI Vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are: the petitioner is a Post-Graduate in M. A. Sociology and belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He has also passed National Educational Test (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. E. T' for brevity)conducted by the University Grants Commission and the eligibility test for lecturership called as s. E. T. conducted by the University of Pune. The petitioner has registered for a Ph. D. Degree in sociology under the faculty of Social Science and is yet to complete the Doctorate. Respondent no. 1 is a University governed by the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ). The respondent No. 1, by a Notification dated 5. 10. 2002 published in the Daily Newspaper 'samyukta Karnataka', invited applications for several posts, including two posts of Lecturer in Sociology. One post of Lecturer in Sociology at the P. G. Centre, Belgaum was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category and one post of lecturer in Sociology at Dharwad was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In terms of the notification, a candidate for the post of Lecturer is required to have passed N. E. T. conducted by the University Grants Commission. It is also stated that such of those who have obtained M. Phil, degree on or before 31. 12. 1993 or who have secured Ph. D. degree before interview, would get exemption from obtaining N. E. T. Certificate. It is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 3 and six other candidates applied for the post of lecturer reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In terms of Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for brevity), there shall be a Board of Appointment, and the Board of Appointment would consist of Vice Chancellor as the Ex-officio Chairman and three experts to be nominated by the government from out of the panel of the University Grants Commission. The Chairman of the departmental Council or a professor in the same Department -one professor from another university in the State to be nominated by the Chancellor and the Registrar of the concerned university was to be the very Secretary of the Board. Respondent No. 2 is a Professor in sociology Department in the Mangalore University. He was nominated as one of the experts in terms of Section 53 (2) (b) of the Act. It is the petitioner's case that interviews were conducted on 17. 12003. The petitioner, respondent No. 3 and five other candidates attended the interview. It is contended that the Board of Appointment consisted of six persons including the Member secretary on the date of interview and the person to be nominated under Section 53 (2) (B) (iv) did not attend the selection.

(2.) IT is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 3 had not passed the N. E. T. , but he had secured ph. D. Degree. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner had registered for Ph. D. degree. He had worked for more than five years in securing the degree from Mangalore university and that respondent No. 2 was his guide during the relevant period and hence, was closely associated with the said respondent. This is a presumption that would straightaway arise having regard to the close association for a period of five years. It is the petitioner's case that he was not aware of the fact that there was such a relationship as between the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 at the time of interview. The respondent No. 1 has published provisional list of selected candidates, wherein respondent No. 3 had been selected for the post of Lecturer in sociology reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates and the petitioner was kept on a waiting list. The petitioner further alleges that the candidature of respondent No. 3 was considered though he had not passed the N. E. T. and this has been overlooked on the footing that the respondent No. 3 had obtained a Ph. D. Degree and was entitled for exemption. It is the petitioner's plea that he has obtained better marks at the interview except as awarded by respondent No. 2. And, therefore, it is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 3 has been able to score over the petitioner only on account of the influence that was present by virtue of the relationship as between the respondents nos. 2 and 3 and since the petitioner was not aware of this relationship, as already stated, he had not raised any objection in this regard, and it is only after coming to know of this relationship, he had submitted a representation to the Registrar, Karnataka University at Dharwad, on 21. 22003. Inspite of the same, no action was initiated and it is now learnt by the petitioner that the select list prepared by the Board of Appointment was submitted to the Syndicate of the University and it has been ratified. It is in all possibility that the respondent No. 3 would be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Sociology. He would submit that the entire process of selection, because of the participation of the respondent No. 2, stands vitiated in so far as the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are concerned and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner, would argue, that the apprehension which is well-founded, having regard to the sequence of events, that the long relationship of guide and scholar as between the respondents Nos. 2 and 3, had a subtle and telling influence in the selection process, which was unknown to the petitioner, and it is only upon learning of this circumstance that the petitioner is before this Court. He would submit that in the matter of selection, impartiality should not only be adhered to strictly, but it also ought to be seen to be present. And, the very presence of the respondent No. 2 as a Member of the Board of Appointment in the interview and resulting in the respondent No. 3 being selected, the entire process is vitiated.