Basavaiah vs H.L. Ramesh & Ors

5. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeals are recapitulated as under:

6. The appellants in both the appeals were appointed as Readers in Sericulture in the year 1999 on the basis of the qualifications possessed by them in accordance with the vacancy Notification No. ET.8/335/98-99 dated 12.11.1998. 3 As per the notification, the qualifications necessary for appointment as Readers as per the said notification are set out as under:

7. Dr. Basavaiah obtained M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Botany. Thereafter, he served as Senior Research Assistant in the Central Sericultural Research and Training Institute (for short CSRTI), Mysore from the years 1986 to 1992. Dr. Basavaiah, the appellant herein while working as Senior Research Assistant, joined the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute (for short, KSSRDI) at Bangalore as Scientific Officer-II and continued to work there 4 till 31.1.1994. In addition to the research work he had taught many training courses and also worked as the examiner of M.Sc. Sericulture.

13. Dr. H. L. Ramesh, the respondent in both the appeals challenged the appointments of both the appellants in the High Court on the ground that the appellants were not qualified to be appointed as Readers in Sericulture. The learned single Judge on 11.10.2004 after examining the pleadings and scrutinizing the arguments of the parties dismissed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent (Dr. H.L. Ramesh) in the Writ Petition No. 24300 of 1999.

25. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment allowed the appeal filed by Dr. H.L. Ramesh, respondent no. 1 herein, on the short ground that the appellants herein did not have Doctorate degree in Sericulture. Therefore, they were not qualified for appointment as Readers in Sericulture. In the impugned judgment, the court did not properly comprehend 12 the advertisement in which it was clearly mentioned that the prescribed qualification was Doctorate degree or equivalent published work. According to the affidavit which has been filed by the University, the Expert Committee consisting of highly qualified five distinguished experts evaluated the qualification, experience and the published work of the appellants. They found them eligible and suitable. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as under:-

14. Respondent Dr. H. L. Ramesh, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of 7 the High Court. The writ appeal was allowed and the appointments of the appellants were set aside leaving it open to the University of Mysore to make fresh selection in accordance with the law.

24. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 on the ground that selection had taken place in 1999 and the appellants were working in their respective teaching posts and the court did not deem it appropriate to disturb the existing arrangement and dismissed the petition.

46. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court.

47. The University of Mysore, respondent herein, is directed to give regular pay-scale to the appellants from 1st August, 2010. To avoid any further litigation, we may make it clear 24 that the appellants would not be entitled to claim any arrears or benefits for the past period.

48. The appeals are allowed, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

July 29, 2010