IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.994 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
DR.LAKSHMI V W/O GOVIND PRASAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.5, NADANATHOTA HOUSE NEAR MANGANAHALLI CROSS ULLAL MAIN ROAD JNANA BHARATHI POST BANGALORE – 56 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI.P.G.YATNAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE – 560 001 3. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALA GANGOTHRI KONAJE, MANGALORE – 574 199 4. PROFESSOR T.C.SHIVASHANKAR MURTHY VICE CHANCELLOR MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALA GANGOTHRI KONAJE, MANGALORE – 574 199 5. DR.DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O MR.NARAYANAM R/AT “DHATRI” HANDELU PUTHIGE POST SAMPIGE, MOODABIDRE – 574 227 DAKSHINA KANNADA ... RESPONDENTS (SRI S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2,) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.17271/2014 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OF THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. Both the appellant/writ petitioner and the fifth respondent applied for the post of the Assistant Professor in Kannada on the basis of the advertisement dated 10th May 2013. The fifth respondent was selected and that is why the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, while rejecting the petition observed that as per the guidelines framed by the University Grants Commission, the parameters for assessment have been laid down and a Committee comprising of five members after comparative evaluation awarded 64 marks to the appellant and the fifth respondent has been awarded 70.5 marks. The learned Single Judge also observed that out of 100 marks, only 12.5 marks were reserved for the interview, out of which the appellant secured 5.8 marks whereas the fifth respondent has secured 8.3 marks. The learned Single Judge observed that it is a well settled law that in exercise of powers of judicial review, a Writ Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of a committee of experts.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the information obtained under the Rights to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the said Act of 2005’) as well as the stand taken in the objections filed by the University. He submitted that the University has misled this Court by setting out incorrect marks. His second contention is that the fifth respondent had not written any books and the fifth respondent submitted only his research papers whereas the appellant has written a large number of books and therefore, the Committee erred in giving 20 marks each to both of them on research performance.
5. We have considered the submissions. Even if we go by the documents furnished to the appellant under the said Act of 2005, still the appellant has secured lesser marks than the fifth respondent. As far as the marks / points assigned for research publications / performance are concerned, we may note here that only because the appellant has written books and the fifth respondent has not written any books, the assessment cannot be faulted with inasmuch as the marks are required to be assigned on the research performance as can be seen from the research papers/publications.
6. The assessment is based on the research papers submitted by the fifth respondent. The committee of experts has made the assessment after considering the research papers submitted by the fifth respondent and the books submitted by the appellant. There is bound to be some subjectivity in the assessment. However, the assessment is by a body of experts as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB