Civil Appeal No. 9866 of 2013 (@ Slp (C) No. 35063 of 2009) With Civil Appeal No. 9867 of 2013 (@ Slp (c) No. 35173 of 2009). Case: 1. Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput, 2. Gulbarga University Rep. By Its Registrar and Others Vs 1. Gulbarga University Rep. By Its Registrar and Others, 2. Shivanand and Others. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 9866 of 2013 (@ Slp (C) No. 35063 of 2009) With Civil Appeal No. 9867 of 2013 (@ Slp (c) No. 35173 of 2009) |
| Judges | Chandramauli Kr Prasad and Kurian Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Karnataka Universities Act - Section 53; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16(1) |
| Judgement Date | November 01, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Chandramauli Kr Prasad, J.
Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as also the Gulbarga University, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19/24th of November, 2009 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.3216 of 2004 quashing the appointment of aforesaid Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as Lecturer in MCA in the Post-graduate Department of the University, have preferred these special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
The appellant, Gulbarga University, hereinafter referred to as 'the University', issued notification dated May 22, 1998 inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Lecturer in Masters' in Computer Application, for short, MCA. The minimum qualification, for appointment to the post of Lecturer and with which we are concerned in these appeals, is good academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade at the Masters' Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University.
Shivanand, respondent No.3 herein, and Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput, respondent No.3 of the writ petition (appellant herein), besides other persons offered their candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA. The appellant claims to have passed the M.Sc. examination in Mathematics with First Class with distinction. It is an admitted position that Shivanand possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and was eligible in terms of the advertisement. The University, in terms of Section 53 of the Karnataka Universities Act constituted a 'Board of appointment' for selecting suitable candidates. It consisted of experts holding high positions in academic field including a Professor each from University of Pune, Bombay University and Kuvempu University. The Board of appointment interviewed the candidates and ultimately made a recommendation for the appointment of the appellant, hereinafter referred to as 'Ganpat', who admittedly did not have a post-graduate degree in MCA, but had a Masters' Degree in Mathematics. The recommendation so made was placed for consideration before the Syndicate which approved his appointment.
Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and appointment in a writ petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, contending that Masters' Degree in Mathematics will not make Ganpat eligible in terms of the advertisement and, therefore, his selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA is illegal. Shivanand further pointed out that since he possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfils all other conditions, he ought to have been selected for appointment. Ganpat as also the University resisted the prayer of Shivanand and contended that the expression 'relevant subject' used in the notification would mean any subject which is relevant for the purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in MCA. It was contended that Masters' degree in Mathematics is a degree in a relevant subject and thus Ganpat possessed the basic qualification. While defending the appointment it was further contended that in the syllabus for MCA, Mathematics is the core subject and, therefore, a candidate having a post-graduate degree in Mathematics is eligible for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It was also pointed out that when an expert body like the Board of appointment had found that a post-graduate degree in Mathematics is a relevant subject for the purpose of adjudging the eligibility and the same having been approved by the Syndicate of the University, a body consisting of experts, the same was not fit to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge considered the submission, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the appointment of Ganpat, inter alia, observing as follows:
"8.......The use of the word 'relevant subject' in relation to the qualification for Lecturers' post is the bone of contention between the parties. It is also Sri. Chandrashekar's assertion that it should relate only to a Master degree in Computer Applications and nothing else, while, the University would contend that it could also mean such of those who have secured a Masters degree in Mathematics. It is not in dispute that the Head of the Department, M.C.A. is held by a person who is also a Ph.D. holder in Mathematics. It is not in dispute that Mathematics is also subject which is taught in the Masters degree in Computer Applications course. What one can reasonably infer from the pleadings of the parties is that 'relevant subject' could mean candidates who possessed Masters Degree in such of those subjects as are offered in the M.C.A. course. Mathematics being one...
To continue reading
Request your trial