IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.56317/2018(S-RES) BETWEEN SRI. DR. SHANKARPPABHAJANTRI S/O. BALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (AGB), DEPARTMENT OF LIVE STOCK FORM, VETERINARY COLLEGE, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 082. (BY SRI MAHESHA B, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL AND FISHERIES, SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-585 401.
(BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 SRI H N SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REVISED NOTIFICATION DT:17.10.2018 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Animal Genetics and teaching Veterinary and Breeding in the Veterinary College at Hebbal, Bengaluru.
2. It is contended by the petitioner that he has completed twelve years and six months of service and therefore, he was eligible and qualified for being appointed as Associate Professor. The second respondent-Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries, Science University, issued a notification dated 16.10.2018 inviting applications for the post of Associate Professor to fill up all the backlog vacancies.
3. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the notification dated 16.10.2018, the qualification prescribed for Associate Professors is Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied subject from a recognized University with a minimum of 5 years of experience in Teaching/Research in a University or Government Organisation/Statutory body OR a Master’s Degree in the concerned/allied subject from a recognized University with a minimum of 50% marks and 10 years of experience in Teaching/Research etc. However, the notification dated 16.10.2018 was withdrawn by issuing a revised notification dated 17.10.2018, which would require that a person to be appointed as Associate Professor should be having a Ph.D Degree in concerned/relevant discipline with a minimum of 5 years of experience in Teaching/Research in an academic/research position equivalent to Assistant Professor in an University, college or research institution etc. OR a Master’s Degree in the concerned/relevant discipline with a minimum of ten years of experience in Teaching/Research in an academic/research position equivalent to Assistant Professor in an University, college or research institution with evidence of published work and a minimum of 3 publications of books on research/policy papers.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the revised notification which prescribes certain qualifications which were not available in the earlier notification. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even in the previous recruitment notifications, the same qualification as was prescribed in the notification dated 16.10.2018 was provided. However, by issuing the revised notification, additional qualifications have been prescribed.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University, however, submits that this Court in W.P.No.54779/2018, by order dated 13.12.2018 had stayed the operation of the notification dated 17.10.2018 and permitted the petitioner to file his application in terms of the earlier notification dated 16.10.2018 and the respondent was directed to consider the same without reference to the revised notification dated 17.10.2018. The learned Counsel further submits that the same benefit was extended to the petitioner herein by order dated 19.10.2018. However, though the petitioner had filed an application under the original notification dated 16.10.2018, he did not choose to appear or participate in the interview though liberty was granted by this Court to the petitioner to participate in the interview and the selection process.
6. In that view of the matter, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University that the matter has become infructuous, in view of the conclusion of the recruitment process and selection of the candidates. It is also submitted that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the result of the selection was not announced.
7. Having heard the learned Counsels and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petition has become infructuous and the respondent- University should be permitted to go ahead with the announcement of the selection that was held by the respondent-University.
The petition is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-