Bhimasena Rao vs Director of Technical Education

This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group, by consent of Counsel for parties, is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioner is a Lecturer in what is known as B.M.S. Engineering College (respondent-2). The said College is managed by a registered trust under the Indian Trusts Act. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 23-8-1954 by the 2nd respondent-College. He has been working in that College ever since in that post.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of certain correspondence between the Government of Karnataka and the Registrar of the University of Bangalore, the 1st respondent-Director of Technical Education in Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the Director) has issued a letter bearing No. DTE 56 GRT(1) 77 dated 16-9-1978 according approval to the 2nd respondent-Management of the College to advertise certain posts in the College to be filled up by direct recruitment. It is the case of the petitioner that item-2 mentioned in the said letter of ''the Director'' which is produced along with the writ petition as Ext.-D relates to the two posts of Mechanical Engineers in the cadre of Assistant Professors.

Shri S. Vasantha Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously contended that the Director has no jurisdiction to accord approval to whatever proposals that the 2nd respondent-College may have forwarded in so fair as it affects his right to be considered for promotion as Assistant Professor. The foundation for this contention is the correspondence between the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka and the Registrar of the University of Bangalore, the relevant portion of which is extracted below for convenience as the same has been produced by the petitioner as Ext.-B to the petition:

"With reference to your letter No. SYN 1 ORD 77 dated 8-1-77 on the above subject, I am directed to state that the Bangalore University College of Engineering stands on a different footing than the other affiliated Engineering Colleges. The University College is run and maintained by the University and it does not come under the Grant-in-aid Code. The affiliated Engineering Colleges are entitled to grants only if the qualifications and service conditions of their teachers are not more favourable than those prescribed for corresponding posts in Government Colleges of Engineering B.D.T. College of Engineering in the State. I am, therefore, to inform you that qualification, service conditions and other rules of the Teachers of affiliated Engineering Colleges may be same as in Government B.D.T. College of Engineering."

The learned Counsel has further relied upon R. 16(b)(iv) of the Grant-in-aid Code of the Department of Technical Education, Karnataka-Bangalore, which reads as follows:

"that the qualifications of the members of staff were the same as those prescribed for corresponding posts in Government Institutions and their service conditions were not more favourable than those applicable to similar staff in Government Institutions of the same category."

It is therefore, the, argument of the learned Counsel that whatever the conditions of service in the B.D.T. College of Engineering which is a College run by the Government in contra-distinction to the Colleges run by private bodies and the University, should be made applicable to him and that in the said College, there is determination of promotional quota and direct recruitment quota for the cadre of Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering.

On behalf of the 1st respondent, statement of objections have been filed and in the said statement of objections the 1st respondent has relied upon the very same Ext.-B to the petition to repel the contention of the petitioner. It is stated that the rules referred to in the letter at Ext.-B were applicable to only Colleges that were under the control of the University and as the respondent-College came under the Grant-in-aid Code, Rules of recruitment framed by the Bangalore University were not applicable. In other words, if properly understood the stand of the 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent can have its own mode of recruitment so long as it is not in the administrative control of the University. This is not really meeting the case of the petitioner. The petitioner''s substantial averments that in spite of Ext.-B he must be given the benefit of the provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code is not wholly met.

However that may be, I am unable to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is an aggrieved person at all by the letter at Ext.-D. Nor could it be said that he is an aggrieved, person, even assuming that there has been violation of any of the provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code, Ext.-D is a mere letter according approval to the proposal sent by the College. It has been submitted by Shri H.R. Venkataramanaiah, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-College that the proposal was in conformity with the standard of qualification prescribed by the University for its teaching staff in the relevant cadre viz., Assistant Professors and that the petitioner though employed, in the College from 1954 not being a holder of the Master''s degree in the subject which he teaches, cannot be said to be adequately qualified in accordance with the standards prescribed by the University. Defiance to the standards prescribed by the University is likely to visit upon the College serious consequences of disaffiliation, and therefore, the College sought approval of the Director of Technical Education for advertising the posts in question. Though the statement of objections has not been tiled, oral submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent and therefore the oral submission is placed on record.

It is unnecessary to decide the question in the light of the decision in Union of India v. K.P. Joseph, AIR. 1973 SC. 303, on which strong reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner whether or not the Grant-in-aid Code in question has the effect of being administrative instructions conferring specific legal rights on the petitioner. In other cages considered by the Supreme Court under the Grant-in-aid Code or similar nonstatutory rules framed for departmental convenience an in the case of Fernandes v. State of Mysore, AIR. 1967 SC. 636, where the P.W.D. Code was considered, and also in the case of Kumari Regina v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR. 1971 SC. 1920, the Supreme Court held that non-statutory Rules are Rules framed for the working of the Department and were in the nature of instructions which would not confer any legal right on third parties. Disobedience to the said Rules would at best result in the officer disobeying the Rules being punished by superiors and no more. In that view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Joseph''s case is not tenable. The administrative instructions which the Supreme Court was considering in Joseph''s case were totally on a different footing. The said instructions were in the form of a memorandum issued by the Ministry of Defence conferring specific rights on existing and former employees of the Department and that cannot be equated with either the tetter of approval at Ext. D to the petition or the Grant-in-aid Code which is neither an executive order made by the State of Karnataka in exercise ofits power under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India or statutory Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a holder of Master''s degree in Mechanical Engineering. Though the University may not have issued specific directions to the College concerned, as it is the authority which grants the affiliation itis butt necessary that the University should be left with the sole discretion of prescribing the minimum standards required for teaching staff in institution imparting Technical Education. I derive support for this view expressed by me from the decided case of University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR. 1965 SC. 491, in which case the Supreme Court has held that in matters relating to academic qualifications, the specially set up academic bodies are better Judges and the Courts should be slow to substitute their opinion for that of such bodies.

Now this leaves one question to be answered and that is; what conditions of service should govern the petitioner in his employment under the 2nd respondent-College? The Grant in aid Code came into existence on 29th October 1966 long after the petitioner was appointed and as earlier stated, does not confer any rights upon him. Similarly, the Karnataka Education Departments Service Technical Education Department Recruitment Rules, 1964, on which a strong reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also should be rejected in as much at the Departmental Rules are applicable to the services under the department cannot be extended to institution which are not underthe control and management of the Department. All that could be said is the conditions of service of the petitioner can at best be said to be governed by the terms ofthe appointment which he obtained in 1954, the details of which are not available to the Court and the appointment order has not been produced.

For the reasons stated above, there is no reason to issue rule in this case, and therefore, the writ petition is rejected.

In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.