K T LAXMANA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECTION 68 of Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 empowers the State Government to transfer to the University by an order published in the Official Gazette any of its colleges, with hostels, buildings, laboratories, stores, equipments etc. Upon the publication of any such transfer order, the transferred college becomes a college maintained and administered by the University and the properties mentioned in the order become the properties of the University. Sub-section (3) of Section 68 provides that where any college has been transferred for maintenance and control of the University by an order under sub-section (1) then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, all members of the teaching staff and other servants of the State government, who were immediately before the date of publication of the order serving in or attached to the college shall stand transferred to the appropriate cadre or category of posts in the university. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is against an order dated 1st of August, 1992, whereby the Government have transferred to the Mangalore University, government college, Mangalore. The grievance precisely is that the petitioners were entitled to continue in the service of the college, which now stand terminated by reason of the transfer of the college to the University. The wisdom behind the transfer of the college to the University has also been questioned. It is urged by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that although a large number of full time vacancies oflecturers were in existence, yet no action was taken by the university to fill up the same. Instead part-time appointments were made, depriving the part-time lecturers of the benefit of prescribed time-scale of pay admissible to tbose appointed on regular basis. The transfer order it was argued prevented the petitioners from claiming regularisation of their services under the State Government.

(2.) THE respondent-University has filed a statement of objections, in which it is inter alia stated that the petitioners were all appointed as part-time lecturers in accordance with the Government circulars issued from time to time and were in terms of the said orders entitled to a maximum remuneration of Rs. 75/- per month if they taught for one hour per week. The monthly remuneration, which was admissible to such lecturers was Rs. 600/- only with a maximum work load of eight hours per week, which was only 50% of the work load, assigned to the regular lecturer. It is further stated that appointments of staff in the University was governed by karnataka State Universities Act, in which there was no provision either to appoint or continue an appointment earlier made on part-time basis. Sections 49, 50 and 51 (B) of the Act do not, according to the respondents, empower the Vice-Chancellor or any other authority in the university to make appointments on part-time basis or continue any such appointments. The part-time appointees were, free to engage themselves in any other vocation. Their services were terminable after a period of nine months or the last working day of the session. They were not appointed by the competent recruiting authority nor was any such appointment made based on recruitment rules or in accordance with the roster system prescribed for regular appointments. Even the minimum qualification prescribed for regular appointment was not followed as all these appointments were made only to meet the excess work load till the full time lecturers were appointed.

(3.) WHEN this petition came up for admission, the termination of the services of the petitioners was stayed by an interim order dated 5th of March, 1993. That order was vacated by this Court on 18th of August, 1993. Consequently, the services of the petitioners were terminated nearly six years ago. The admitted position is that the petitioners are not in service whether on part-time, temporary or permanent basis cither in the State Government or in the University as on date. The question then is whether they can on the basis of their part-time engagements claim any right to get absorbed in the University service consequent upon the transfer order made by the government. That order is relatable to Section 68 (3) of the Universities Act referred to earlier although it does not make any reference to the said provision. It is fairly well-settled that even when an order issued by authority does not make any reference to the provision under which it is issued, the same can bn related to the source of power otherwise available to it. Since the power to transfer its colleges is available to the State Government under Section 68, the impugned order be deemed to have been issued in exercise of the same. Section 68 (3) (a) with which we are concerned runs thus.