Smt. A.H. Rashmi - Petitioner @HASH State of Karnataka and Others

Mr. Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. - With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, this case is being decided at this point itself.

The petitioner-Smt. A.H. Rashmi, has challenged the legality of the order dated 26-8-2015 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the respondent No. 1 has rejected the petitioner''s claim for sanction of grant-in-aid for the post of Assistant Professor held by the petitioner. She has further sought two reliefs from this Court namely, that the Court should direct the respondent No. 1 to accord grant-in-aid for the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in consideration of the representation dated 14-9-2015 by granting two years time to acquire the qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D., and has also prayed that the respondent No. 3-Vidyodaya Law College, should be directed to continue the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor of Law in its college till respondent No. 1 accords grant-in-aid to the appointment of the petitioner as a Assistant Professor of Law. By way of interim relief, the petitioner has prayed that the notification dated 27-1-2016 issued by the respondent No. 3 should be stayed, and the selection on the post of Assistant Professor of Law should be barred by this Court.

The brief facts of the case are (hat the petitioner passed her Master''s degree in Constitutional Law in the year 2010. She had secured 58.77% in the Master''s degree. On 30-8-2012, the respondent No. 3 had published a notification inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor of Law for the Scheduled Caste Category. Since the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category, she applied for the same. She was duly selected for the said post. She joined her post on 5-1-2013 on 26-8-2015, the respondent No. 1 issued an order according grant-in-aid to certain teaching and non-teaching posts. However, the appointment of the petitioner was not admitted to grant-in-aid, inter alia on the ground that from the date of her initial appointment, she did not possess the minimum required qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. In the said order, the respondent No. 1 imposed certain conditions, namely that "those candidates who do not possess the minimum qualification should possess the qualification within a period of two years from the date of their appointment; those whose appointment has not been admitted to grant-in-aid, they may make a representation to the Government within one month and same would be considered by the Government". Consequently, on 14-9-2015, the petitioner submitted a representation. However, the said representation did not solicit any response from the respondents. Meanwhile, the petitioner appeared for Karnataka State Eligibility Test (SLET) on 6-12-2015. The results of which are still awaited. Further, on 27-1-2016, the respondents have issued a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates for three posts of Assistant Professors reserved in favour of the Scheduled Caste candidates. Hence, this petition before this Court for aforesaid prayers.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the order dated 26-8-2015, it was clearly held out that the petitioner shall have two years time for acquiring the qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. However, the period of two years is yet to be over. But instead of giving her the time to acquire the said qualification, the respondents have issued the notification dated 27-1-2016 inviting applications for the very post held by the petitioner.

Secondly, despite the fact that she submitted a representation on 14-9-2015, the representation is yet to be considered.

Thirdly, meanwhile, the petitioner had already taken the Karnataka State Eligibility Test (SLET). According to the marks published on the Internet, it seems, she has cleared the examination. This fact was brought to the notice of the Department of Collegiate Education by her representation dated 21-3-2016. But even then, the said representation is yet to receive a response. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in claiming that the respondents are unjustified in rejecting her case for sanction of grant-in-aid, and in issuing the impugned notification dated 27-1-2016.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of State of Karnataka and another v. B. Suvarna Malini and another, AIR 2001 SC 606 : (2001) 1 SCC 728 : 2001 SCC (L and S) 309, in order to plead that those who have been working on a particular post for a long time, and to whom certain concessions have been made, such person deserves to be given the benefit of the concessions. But the same is not being done in the case of the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently pleaded that the basic requirement for selection to the post of Assistant Professor of Law is that the person must have the qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D.

Secondly, in the order dated 26-8-2015, the respondents had made it amply clear that the person should have the said requirement within two years from the date of appointment. Despite the fact that the petitioner was appointed on 5-1-2013, so far, she has not acquired the eligibility requirement. Therefore, the respondents were justified in not granting the benefit of grant-in-aid. Moreover, since there are vacancies available, the respondents were justified in issuing the notification dated 27-1-2016 inviting applications for the said posts.

Lastly, even if the representations have been filed by the petitioner, consideration of the representations would be a mere formality. For, the petitioner does not have the minimum eligible qualification for the said post. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, and the learned Counsel for the State have supported the impugned order and the impugned notification.

It is, indeed, trite to state that the Recruitment Rules themselves provide the minimum eligible requirement. According to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor of Law is required to have a qualification of NET/SLET/Ph.D. Although a concession had been given by the respondents by order dated 26-8-2015, but the concession was only for a period of two years from the date of appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 5-1-2013 on the post of Assistant Professor of Law. Thus, she should have acquired the required eligible qualification by 4-1-2015. According to the petitioner herself, although she has taken the Karnataka State Eligibility Test on 6-12-2015, the final result thereof has not been declared. Thus, even today, she does not have the eligibility of SLET in her favour.

Even if the impugned order dated 26-8-2015 held out a hope that any representation filed would be considered, it clearly states that the representation would be considered "in accordance with law". However, as the petitioner does not have the minimum eligibility requirement, the consideration of the representation would be a mere formality. Her prayer for continuing on the post of Assistant Professor possibly could not be granted by the respondents, as it would be violative of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules. Therefore, this Court would not be justified in directing the respondents to consider the representation.

Since the petitioner''s appointment on the said post is de hors the rules, the respondents are certainly justified in publishing the notification dated 27-1-2016. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the publication of the notification.

The case of B. Suvarna Malini does not support the case of the petitioner. For, the said case dealt with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Absorption of Persons Working as Part-time Lecturers in the Karnataka Education Department Services) (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special) Rules, 1996. The issue before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was whether the Rules are discriminatory in nature or not? Under peculiar circumstances of the said case, and considering the fact that the Rules were provided as a one time measure to absorb those who have been working for ten to twenty years, the Apex Court did not find it as discriminatory. In fact, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was moved by the human aspect of the case that those who have worked for two decades could not be left high and dry. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not been working for last two decades. Therefore, the present case is distinguishable from the case of B. Suvarna Malini.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by orders dated 29-6-2011 and 4-12-2012, the respondent No. 1 had accorded grant-in-aid to certain teaching staff recruited by two different colleges, notwithstanding that the teaching staff did not have the requisite qualification. However, even the said argument is bereft of any merit. For, in the order dated 29-6-2011 passed by the respondents, the teaching staff were given two years time to acquire NET/SLET within two years from the date of the order. However, in the present case, the persons have been granted two years from the date of appointment. Moreover, if the order dated 29-6-2011 is contrary to the requirement of law, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming equality on a negative basis. Therefore, the said contention is clearly unacceptable.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.