Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1077 (KAR)

Ganesh B v. Kuvempu University Jnana Sahyadri

2014-12-11

K.L.MANJUNATH, RAVI MALIMATH

body2014
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.18020/2005 dated 14th June, 2011, the present appeal is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The admitted facts are as hereunder: The petitioner was working as a Lecturer in Commerce in Vivekananda College of Arts, Commerce & Science, Puttur, which College is affiliated to Mangalore University. Later he was working as full time Lecturer in Acharya Tulasi National Commerce College, Shimoga between 10-7-1981 to 1-8-1989. Pursuant to the Notification issued by the Kuvempu University he applied for the post of Assistant Registrar. Accordingly he was appointed as Assistant Registrar carrying the pay scale of Rs. 3100-5000(pre revised pay scale) and subsequently he was further promoted as Deputy Registrar. Contending that one Sri Janardhana who was working as selection Grade Lecturer in Govindadas College, Surathkal, was appointed on deputation as Administrative Officer in Mangalore University and later on Sri Janardhana was appointed as Deputy Registrar on deputation basis in terms of the Statutes of Mangalore University and that Sri Janardhana was later absorbed as Registrar of Mangalore University and the Government has granted the benefit of academic status with the benefit of age of retirement as provided under the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976, the appellant also made a request to give the benefit of academic status. The request of the appellant came to be rejected by the State of Karnataka. Therefore the writ petition came to be filed requesting the Court to quash the endorsement dated 6-4-2005 vide Annexure-L and to issue a writ of certiorari or direction to quash the communication dated 19-3-2005 and to further issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assign ‘Academic Status’ to the appellant on par with the teaching staff with the benefit of age of retirement as envisaged under the Karnataka State Universities Act. The writ petition filed by the appellant came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The main contention of the appellant is that the State as well as the learned Single Judge have committed an error in not considering the request of the appellant in granting ‘academic status’ since the facts involved in the present appeal and the facts in the case of Sri Janardhana are one and the same. 4. The main contention of the appellant is that the State as well as the learned Single Judge have committed an error in not considering the request of the appellant in granting ‘academic status’ since the facts involved in the present appeal and the facts in the case of Sri Janardhana are one and the same. According to him, when the State has conferred the academic status to Sri Janardhana, the rejection of the application of the appellant amounts to discrimination. Therefore he requests the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the endorsement issued by the State. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the Government Order dated 12-11-1999 passed in the case of Sri Janardhana is purely personal and that the same shall not be treated as a precedent applicable to any other Registrar or Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar in any of the Universities in the Karnataka. Therefore he contends that the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is : Whether the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition? 7. The appellant does not dispute that pursuant to Notification he was appointed as Assistant Registrar in Kuvempu University in the year 1989 and later he was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar in 1994. Therefore he does not enjoy the academic status. Taking advantage of the order passed by the Mangalore University in the case of Janardhana dated 12-11-1999 the appellant is laying his claim to confer the same status to him. Annexure-E dated 12-11-1999 reads as hereunder: “OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM” Sub: Assignment of academic status to Sri K. Janardhana, Registrar, Mangalore University-Reg. Ref: Leter No. ED 44 UDV 99, dated 12.11.1999. PREAMBLE: The Secretary to Government, Department of Education in her letter cited above has stated that the government have agreed to treat the post of Registrar of Mangalore University as “Academic” for the period held by Sri K.Janaradhana as purely personal and it shall not be a precedent applicable to any other Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Asst. Registrars in any of the Universities in Karnataka etc. Hence this order. Registrars in any of the Universities in Karnataka etc. Hence this order. ORDER NO.MU: VC: REG: 1999-2000 DATED 12.11.1999 Under the circumstances explained above, Sri K. Janardhana, Registrar, Mangalore University is here by considered as “Academic” staff on par with the teachers of the university for all purposes and benefits including the age of retirement.” 8. From the above order of Mangalore University it is clear that the academic status granted to Janaradhana is purely a personal one and the same shall not be treated as a precedent applicable to any other Registrars or Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars in any of the Universities. The order granted to Sri Janardhana has not been questioned by the appellant or any other persons who are similarly situated to that of the appellant. If the Government has committed an error in granting the status as granted to Mr. Janaradhana, contrary to the Statute this Court cannot issue a direction to the Government or to the University to commit the same mistake. The appellant is unable to placer any material before this Court as to how such academic status can be conferred upon him as per the Cadre & Recruitment Rules of the University or under the Karnataka Universities Act. In the absence of any vested right accrued to the appellant quoting a wrong order passed in the case of Janardhana this Court cannot issue any mandamus to the State of Karnataka or to the University to confer the academic status to the appellant, when the Deputy Registrar post does not entitle to get such status. It is also to be noted by us that the case of Janardhana and the case of the appellant are entirely different. In the case of Sri Janardhana he was working as a Lecturer in the same University and on deputation he was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer and he was continued with the status of academic status and later his services were absorbed in the cadre of Deputy Registrar. Even according to the appellant the absorption of Sri Janaradhana by the Bangalore University was contrary to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules. Even according to the appellant the absorption of Sri Janaradhana by the Bangalore University was contrary to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules. When the appellant contends that the absorption of Sri Janaradhana was contrary to the Cadre & Recruitment Rules, we are unable to understand how the appellant can contend before us that the same mistake shall also be done by the Government or by the Karnataka University or by this Court. Moreover, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Registrar pursuant to Notification and his appointment was not attached to the academic status. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.