Thimmaraju S.N. vs The Bangalore University and Others

Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31st January 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15057/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, appellant has approached this Court.

The brief facts of the case are that on 21.6.1995, the Bangalore University had issued a Notification calling for application for the post of Assistant Professor. However, as the selection could not be completed in time, on 1.7.2006, a fresh Notification was issued by the University. Again the selection process could not be completed. Therefore, on 8.8.2007, another Notification was issued. It was clearly stated in the said Notification that those who have applied in response to the advertisement dated 21.6.2005 and 1.7.2006, need not apply again. Hoping to be selected to the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science Engineering reserved for scheduled caste, the appellant had applied for the said post. However, by an order dated 26.3.2008, while appellant was not selected for the said post, respondent No. 3 viz., Mr. Dilip Kumar S.M., was selected for the said post. Since the appellant was aggrieved by his non-selection, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition challenging his non-selection. But, by judgment dated 31st January 2013, the learned Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two pleas before this Court: firstly the said learned Judge has erred in concluding that the appellant did not have required teaching experience of five years and solely on this ground, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition. However, learned Judge has overlooked the fact that the last date for submission of application was 20.9.2007. Since the appellant was working as a Teacher from 2.9.2002, therefore, on the last date for submission of application, he had completed the required experience of 5 years. Secondly, since the appellant had scored 65% marks in M.E. degree examination, he was entitled for 5 marks. However, according to the Annexure-L, he was allotted only 2 marks. If additional 3 marks were allotted to him, he would have certainly scored more than respondent No. 3, who had scored only 29 marks in total. The learned Judge has not dealt with this second contention. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the 5 years experience which the appellant certainly had on the last date for submission of the application. But, even according to the learned counsel, the second contention raised by the appellant has not been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. But, nonetheless, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the learned Judge has observed at Para-8 that, "even assuming the case of the petitioner to be accepted, he may be entitled for additional 3 marks. However, it would not be necessary to go into that contention in view of the fact that he does not have the required experience".

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment also reveals that while calculating the period of five years of teaching experience, the learned Judge, indeed, has overlooked the fact that as of the last date for submission of the application, the appellant did have five years of teaching experience.

However, the second contention raised by the appellant with regard to the marks he would be entitled to, has not been gone into by the learned Judge.

Hence, this Court deems it proper to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to consider the marks obtained by the appellant and to decide whether the appellant is entitled to extra 3 marks which he claims that he is entitled to, and to adjudicate on the respective merits of the case.

With these observations, the impugned judgment dated 31st January 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 15057/2008 is hereby set aside; the case is remanded to learned Single Judge.

Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.