AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das
Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.06.2006 Annexure CC rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation and regular pay.
The Syndicate Bank and the Canara Bank contributed funds and created a Chair in Rural Banking and Management in the respondent University. The Syndicate of the respondent University in their decision dated 22.09.1995 permitted the creation of this Chair as part of Department of Commerce as per proceedings dated 16.10.1996 - Annexure W. The respondent University framed statute u/s 35(N) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 to govern this particular Chair as per notification dated 21.01.1983 Annexure Z. This statute specifies the staff pattern which includes clerk-cum-typist - 1 post. The petitioner contends that he is working as clerk-cum-typist in this Chair from the year 1985. Despite repeated requests, demands and representations, the services of the petitioner was not regularised. Finally on 17.04.2004 the respondent University rejected the claim of petitioner by issuing an endorsement. Aggrieved by this endorsement dated 17.04.2004 the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 11250/2005 and the same came to be allowed directing the respondent University to reconsider the claim of petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2005 Annexure AA. The respondent University carried the matter in appeal in W.A. No. 3533/2005. During the pendency of the appeal the respondent University passed the impugned order Annexure CC rejecting the claim of petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court by taking note of this development reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order and kept open all"'' contentions to be adjudicated. This is how the present writ petition is filed calling in question the order dated 27.06.2006 Annexure CC.
Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
In the impugned order the respondent University gives the following reasons to reject the claim of the petitioner.
a. Sri. Seetharama has never been an employee of the University and hence the question of regularisation in the services of the University would not arise.
b. There is no sanctioned post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the chair as per statutes against which he is appointed and he is not working against any sanctioned post in the University.
c. His employment is under the chair and as already advised the statutes of the chair do not provide for appointment of Clerk-cum-Typist on regular basis and there is no such sanctioned post in the chair.
d. Sri. Seetharama does not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the University.
e. His appointment has always been in the chair and is contrary to the statute of the University for making temporary appointment in the University.
The reasons stated in the impugned order are factually incorrect. Annexure Z dated 21.09.1983 is the notification issued by the respondent University notifiying the statute relating to the goverance of State Bank Chair in Rural Development. A reading of this statute specifies that one post in the cadre of clerk-cum typist is a sanctioned post. Ignoring this statute the impugned order is passed stating that there is no statute governing the functioning of the Chair and that there is no sanctioned post. Therefore the impugned order is illegal and factually incorrect. On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed
It is not in dispute that the respondent University appointed one Professor S. Giriyappa as the Chairperson of the Chair in question. On his retirement the Government of Karnataka by their communication dated 16.12.2003 Annexure V directed the respondent University to take immediate steps to settle the terminal benefits. In implementation of this communication the respondent University has settled the terminal benefits of Professor S. Giriyappa. When such being the case the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is a clear discrimination. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is working as clerk-cum-typist from the year 1985. Without any break the petitioner has rendered service of 27 years and even now he is continuing to work. It is clear from the Universities statutes as per Annexure Z that the post held by the petitioner is a sanctioned post. In the circumstances it is obligatory on the part of the respondent University to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, For the reasons stated above, the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 27.06.2006 Annexure CC is hereby quashed.
iii. The matter is remanded to the respondent University for fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.