1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENCH

DATED THIS THE 3 RD DECEMBER, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

WRIT PETITION NO.102250/2015 (EDN-RES)

BETWEEN

RAGHAVENDRA S/O HANUMAPPA AGED 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KALYANA NAGAR, RON-582209, DIST: GADAG ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MADANMOHAN M., ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580003

2. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580003

3. THE PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580003

4. SHANKRAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA EITI AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN), THROUGH THE PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580003

5. ODEGOUDA R.T. AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN), 2

THROUGH THE PROFESSOR AND CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580003 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – R3; R4 & R5 - SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF , PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF PROVISIONAL SELECTION LIST OF PH.D. CANDIDATES FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DTD.18.02.2015 ISSUED BY 3 RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-P SO FAR AS SL.NO.2 AND 3 (RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5) IS CONCERNED.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner, fourth and fifth respondents are the candidates, who have submitted their application for prosecuting the Ph.D. degree.

2. A notification dated 15.11.2014 was issued calling for the applications from the eligible candidates to submit their applications. Eligibility to apply for admission to Ph.D. as prescribed under item No.1.1 is that any candidate who has obtained a Post-Graduate Degree from a recognized

University including the foreign candidates (sponsored by their Embassies) and sponsored candidates securing not less than 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST/Cat-I/Physically 3

challenged candidates) at the Post-Graduate Degree shall be eligible to apply for the Ph.D., Degree Program. The petitioner claims that he satisfied the requirements for the submission of the application and accordingly submitted his application.

The provisional list has been published as per the regulations governing the Doctoral Degree Program (Ph.D.) and General

Guidelines 2012-13 and onwards by the University. Under the guideline No.7.1, the Government sponsored foreign candidates, the eligibility is on the basis of comparative percentage of marks and merits from the qualifying examination. As per the said clause, the respondent

University published the provisional selection list as per

Annexure-M dated 16.01.2015, in which this petitioner has placed at Sl.No.2, respondent No.4 is placed at Sl.No.4 and respondent No.5 is placed at Sl.No.10 in the provisional list of eligible candidates for the academic year 2014-15. As per this list, according to the petitioner the petitioner should have been preferred over and above the claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Contrary to the merit list, final list dated 18.02.2015 of provisional selection list has been published, in which the 4

respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 3, whereas this petitioner has been removed from the said list.

Notice of the provisional selection list of Ph.D. Candidates for the year 2014-15 has been sent to the candidates. This provisional selection list is contrary to the guideline No.7.1.

On this ground, the petitioner submits to set aside the selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for prosecuting Ph.D. Degree for the year 2014-15.

3. The respondent – University committed an error and the impugned action is contrary to the guidelines for the

Ph.D. Program and also contrary to the notification dated

15.11.2015 and selection should have been made on the basis of the circular issued to that effect by the respondent.

4. The respondent-University files statement of objections and contended that as per the Circular issued dated 16 th October 2012 the selection has been made. Hence, there is no illegality committed by the respondent. As per item

No.5 therein, the preference has to be given to the petitioner 5

to prosecute the Ph.D. Program. In this circumstance, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted to dismiss this petition.

5. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. Notification was issued on 15.11.2014 for admission to degree, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) for the year

2014-15. The eligibility criteria has been fixed as per the notification on the basis of comparative percentage of marks and merits from the qualifying examination. The candidates must secure 55% marks and the same has been relaxed to

SC/ST/Cat-I/Physically Challenged Candidates to 50%. The petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 belong to ST community. Both the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were eligible to submit their application, since they have secured 50% and above in the Post-Graduation Degree.

There were twelve posts and three posts are earmarked for

ST. As per the guidelines produced at Annexure-A – merit list based on the percentage of marks secured by them at their 6

qualifying examination and Post-graduation examination, by considering the merit, the provisional list has been published, in which the petitioner’s name has to be shown over and above the respondent Nos.4 and 5, as he has secured 74.88 percentage and holding M.Phil degree. The respondent No.4 secured 71.13 percentage and holds KSET degree and respondent No.5 secured 63.50 percentage and holds KSET degree. On the basis of this merit list, it is seen from the provisional list dated 16.01.2015, the petitioner is over and above the respondent Nos.4 and 5. As per the guidelines as per Annexure-A under clause 7.1, the petitioner has been rightly shown in the provisional list but he has been removed from final list, which is contrary to the notification as well as the guidelines. Final provisional list has been published on

18.02.2015, in which the name of the petitioner has been removed and shown the name of respondent No.4 and 5.

Hence, the final provisional list is contrary to the notification as well as the guidelines issued for the purpose of considering the case for selection to the Ph.D. Degree. Circular referred by the respondent is of the year 2012-13 issued by the Registrar 7

of University. When the merit is to be followed as per the guidelines and notification, I found it could not have been supplemented by the circular issued by the Registrar of

University. It is not forthcoming under what provision the

Registrar has issued such circular, which disturbs the principles of merits. Unless competency is traceable to issue the circular, the circular shall not take away the guidelines and notification. The case of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 should have been preferred in case if it is in accordance with either University Act, guidelines or notification. As long as the power is traceable for the Registrar to issue the circular, it is to be observed that preference to respondent Nos.4 and 5 against the petitioner is contrary to law. Accordingly, it is arbitrary. When set of rules is prescribed for the purpose of selection as per the University Act or guidelines or notification, the selection should be strictly in accordance with the procedure known to law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in AIR 1952 SC 64 (Ponnuswamy vs., Returning Officer,

Nomakkal Constituency, Nomakkal that, set of rules are prescribed for the particular purpose, the same shall be 8

followed and the procedure followed contrary to the set of rules is arbitrary. In the instant case, I hold that the selection of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is arbitrary and contrary to the

Selection Rules, guidelines as per Annexure-A and the notification. Hence, I pass the following.

7. The petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the above within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass necessary orders.

Sd/- JUDGE

Vnp*