H ANJANAPPA Vs. CHANCELLOR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste, is working as Superintendent in the University of Bangalore. Similarly Respondents-2 and 4 are also employees in the University. A vacancy of the Assistant Registrar, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes, occurred, to which Respondent-2, who belongs to a general category, has been promoted. Against another vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste, the 4th Respondent has been promoted. The petitioner claims that under Statute No. 25.2 of the Bangalore University Statutes, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Statutes',) read with the entry in the schedule relating to the Assistant Registrars, it is only the graduates with academic record and administrative experience of not less Chan five years in Government Institution or in a University, alone are entitled for promotion by selection from the cadre of Superintendents. According to the averments made in the petition, Respondents-2 and 4 do not possess the qualification of graduation and, therefore, they are not eligible to be considered for Promotion by Selection to the post of Assistant Registrar. The petitioner, through this petition, has prayed that a writ of Certiorari be issued declaring the appointment of Respondent-2 as illegal and void. It is further prayed that a writ of Mandamus be also issued to the Respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion by selection to the post of Assistant Registrar.

(2.) The writ petition is contested by the Respondents on the main ground that for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the cadre of Superintendents it is not necessary that the Superintendents must possess the qualification as mentioned in Column-3 against the entry of Assistant Registrars in the schedule to the Statutes. A plea is also set up that as Respondents-2 and 4 have put in longer period of service as Superintendents than the petitioner, the Board of Appointment thought it necessary to relax the qualification in the case of Respondents 2 and 4 in order to see that they are not deprived of the benefit of their seniority in the cadre of Superintendents.

(3.) The petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, who considered the whole matter in depth. A decision in an unreported judgment of this Court in W.Ps. Nos.17734/81, 19933/81 & 3337/82 (Smt. S.V. Sulochana & others v University of Bangalore & others) was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of their contention. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the entire matter in the light of the relevant statutes, formed an opinion that only graduate Superintendents should be considered as eligible for promotion by selection to the post of Assistant Registrar. As this view according to the learned single Judge was likely to run contrary to the view in the unreported decision referred to above, the learned single Judge thought it appropriate to refer the matter to be decided by a Division Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.