Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 4458 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: DR. PRADEEP KUMAR. K., S/O. R. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (GROUP-A), DEPARTMENT OF CSE, GOVERNMENT SKSJTI, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001, RESIDING AT: NO. 3,
Digitally BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA, Signed by KAVERI NAGARA, REKHA R 1ST MAIN, SULTHAN PALYA, Location : R.T. NAGAR,High Court of BANGALORE-560 032. Karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHREEDHAR G.BIDRE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DR. HAREESH. K S/O. SRI. KUMBHI NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, -2-
COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KRISHNARAJAPET-572 146, RESIDING AT NO.2, 3RD CROSS & 3RD MAIN, SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BANGALORE-560008.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA-2, BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA COUNCIL TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AICTE) NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070.
5. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KRISHNARAJAPET, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426.
6. SRI. RAGHU. M. E. S/O. BASAVARAJAIAH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING DIVISION, -3- GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, HASSAN-571 187.
7. SRI. NAGARAJ AGE MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, RAICHUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 101.
8. SMT. SHASHIKALA PARAMESHWARAPPA AGE MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, HOOVINAHADAGALI, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 219.
9. SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH S.THAMBAGI AGE MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, HAVERI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 110.
10. SRI. DULAPPA CHAVAN AGE MAJOR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING DIVISION, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, HAVERI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY., AGA FOR R2, 3 & 5; SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 22.02.2024, R6 TO R10 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) -4-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2022 IN A.No KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS AT PARA10 OF THE SAID ORDER DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF THE RECRUITED, SELECTED AND APPOINTED CANDIDATES WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETED Ph.D WITHIN 7 YEARS IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) "The relief for which there is no pleading or prayer should neither be considered nor be granted as the same deprives the respondent an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief and it would lead to -5- miscarriage of justice", is the issue involved in this petition.
2. Respondent No.10 in Application
No.5296/2018 is before us challenging the direction issued in the application by order dated 30.05.2022 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore ('Tribunal' for short).
3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of
this petition is as under: As Per respondent No.10 - Petitioner: In response to the Notification issued by the KPSC on 26.02.2009 for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science, respondent No.10 and the applicant applied for the post of Assistant Professor. As per the Notification, the required qualifications for direct recruitment are as follows: -6- "For direct recruitment:-
(1) Must posses Ph.D. degree with the
first class in Bachelor's Degree or Master's Degree level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology with three years experience in Teaching in an institution recognized by A.I.C.T.E or an university established by law, or in any Industry or Research at the level of lecturer; or
(2) First class Master's Degree in the
appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology with five years experience in Teaching/ Industry at the level of lecturer or equivalent. Such candidates shall be required to obtain Ph.D. degree within a period of seven years from the date of appointment as Assistant Professor: Provided that in respect of candidates from industry/ Profession with First class Bachelor's Degree/ First class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology must have not less than five years Industrial/ professional experience."
5. The KPSC issued final selection list,
wherein the name of respondent No.10 was found at -7- Sl.No.8 with marks of 84.10%. The name of the applicant was found at Sl.No.10 with marks of 83.85%. In pursuance of the final selection list, the appointment order was issued to both respondent No.10 as well as the applicant. The appointment
order was issued to respondent No.10 by respondent
No.2 on 13.10.2010. As per the appointment order, one of the conditions stipulated was the candidate who has been appointed must complete the Ph.D. within seven years from the date of appointment.
Neither the Notification nor the appointment order
contains the consequences of not acquiring the Ph.D. within seven years.
6. Both respondent No.10 and the applicant
were appointed as Assistant Professors (Group-A) in IT Engineering Colleges. They were governed by the regulations framed by the A.I.C.T.E. The A.I.C.T.E invoking the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of A.I.C.T.E Act, 1987 framed regulations called -8- "The All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers & Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions) (Degree) Regulations, 2010" (hereinafter called as 'Regulation of 2010'). A clarification came to be issued by the A.I.C.T.E on 04.01.2016 substituting the earlier condition with reference to the qualification at Item No.53 which reads as follows:
53 Whether, Asst. Professor Such candidates will be
(Re-designated as Associate required to complete Ph. D
Professor w.e.f 1-1-2006), within 7 years from the
who are not able to date of Joining, failing
complete the Ph.D in seven which increments shall be
yars from the date of stopped until Ph.D is
joining (Direct/ CAS) will be earned.reverted back.
7. The probation of respondent No.10 was
declared on 22.08.2013. Respondent No.10 enrolled for Ph.D. on 14.06.2010, that is prior to his appointment as Assistant Professor in terms of the recruitment Notification supra. Respondent No.10 could not complete his Ph.D. within seven years as -9- stipulated in the appointment order. Accordingly, his annual increment was stopped from 2017 onwards. Respondent No.10 completed his Ph.D. in January 2021 at Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India. The University issued certificate for having completed Ph.D. on 09.03.2022 (Annexure-F). Respondent No.10 after completion of his Ph.D., submitted representations on 01.02.2021 and 02.02.2021 before the respondent authorities requesting to consider his Ph.D. and enter the same in the Service Register and HRMS. The Principle of S.K.S.J.T.I on 05.03.2022, recommended for releasing of annual increment to respondent No.10 from the date he acquired Ph.D. In pursuance of the recommendations, on 11.04.2022, the third respondent passed an order granting annual increment to respondent No.10.
8. In the meanwhile, the post of Assistant
Professor has been re-designated as Associate - 10 - Professor with certain financial benefits. Respondent No.10 and other similarly situated persons in the year 2014 approached the Tribunal in Application No.261-264/2014 and other connected applications seeking for the financial benefits attached to the re- designated post as Associate Professor. The applications came to be dismissed and the order was challenged in W.P.No.51205-51252/2015 before this court. Respondent No.10 was shown as first petitioner in WP No.51964/2015. The respondent authorities have taken a stand before this Court that respondent No.10 and other similarly situated persons have not completed Ph.D. qualification within seven years from the date of their appointment, as such are not entitled to the benefits. The co-ordinate bench of this Court after considering the case of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, as well as the contentions of the respondent authorities, allowed the petitions partly, quashing the
order passed by the Tribunal in the respective
- 11 - applications by order dated 18.02.2016. The coordinate bench in the order at Paragraph Nos.29 and 30 observed as follows:
"29. Sofar as it relates to the next important aspect that, whether the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale. For the subsequent period has to be looked into. The learned Government Pleader has brought to our notice with regard to the qualifications for the post of Associate Professors as quoted in the notification dated 06.09.2008 by the Government of Karnataka i.e., Ph.D. First Class in any Bachelor Degree or Master Degree level or first class Master Degree in appropriate branch of engineering with five years of experience and that he required to obtain Ph.D Degree within a period of seven years from the date of their appointment. Obtaining of Ph.D. within seven years though it is made as a mandate. In the notification dated 04.01.2016 issued by AICTE, at Item No.53, it is clarified that what would be the consequences if the candidates (Associate Professors) of different departments do not earn Ph.D - 12 -
degree within seven years, which reads as follows:-
53 Whether, Asst. Professor Such candidates will be
(Re-designated as Associate required to complete Ph. D
Professor w.e.f 1-1-2006), within 7 years from the
who are not able to date of Joining, failing
complete the Ph.D in seven which increments shall be
yars from the date of stopped until Ph.D is
joining (Direct/ CAS) will be earned.reverted back.
30. In view of the above said
clarification even if the candidates do no earn Ph.D within seven years, they only lose increments until they earn Ph.D. Therefore, the designation and pay scale will not be impaired. Even otherwise, as could be seen from the records, the petitioners were appointed to the said posts of Assistant Professors during September, October and November of 2010 and they are entitle for time from September to November, 2017, to earn their Ph.D. Therefore, this is too premature to draw an inference against the petitioners in this regard. Therefore, the argument of the learned Government Pleader sofar as this aspect is concerned, is not tenable."
9. The State Authorities unsuccessfully
challenged the order passed by the Co-ordinate - 13 - Bench of this Court, stated supra, approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.5495-5572/2017.
10. Respondent No.10 and another approached the Tribunal in Application No.3605-
order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.51025-51252/2015 supra. The Tribunal allowed the applications and issued directions sought in the applications.
11. As there was disobedience to the order
passed by the Tribunal in the application supra, respondent No.10 and another approached the Tribunal in Contempt Application No.658-659/2012. The contempt application came to be disposed of on 20.04.2023, granting two months' time to the respondent authorities to comply the direction issued by the Tribunal in terms of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Branch of this Court in W.P.No.51025- - 14 - face charges.
12. As the things stood thus, respondent
No.10 received a show-cause notice from the respondent authorities dated 08.12.2023 calling upon him to show cause as to why his service shall not be terminated for non-compliance of condition acquiring Ph.D within seven years from the date of appointment. In the said show-cause notice, the second respondent referred to the order passed by the Tribunal in Application No.5296/2018 dated 30.05.2022 impugned herein. Immediately, respondent No.10 applied for the certified copy and noticed that an application filed calling in question the Final Seniority List of Assistant Professors published on 11.01.2018 on the premise that the applicant has completed Ph.D. in 2014, whereas respondent No.10 and other persons stated in the application have not. Neither there is a pleading nor - 15 - prayer for termination of services of respondent No.10 and other similarly situated persons in the application. Though respondent No.10 and other respondents have engaged the services of a counsel before the Tribunal, unfortunately, neither the statement of objection was filed to the application nor the counsel appeared before the Tribunal when the matter was heard finally and disposed off. The State Government - respondent authorities, filed Statement of objections taking a specific contention that in view of the clarification issued by the A.I.C.T.E regarding the consequences of not acquiring Ph.D. within seven years from the date of appointment, which we have already extracted above. The Tribunal though dismissed the application stating that the final seniority list issued is in terms of the final selection list and appointment orders, holding that there is no provision for higher seniority if the Ph.D is acquired earlier but within seven years. The observation of the Tribunal stated at paragraph No.8 reads as follows: - 16 -
"8. Therefore, in our view, the challenge to the impugned gradation list dated 11-01-2018 which reflects the inter-se seniority of the applicant viz-a-viz the respondents 5-10 as on 1-01-2017 is not liable to be interfered with since it is not the case of the applicant that he is placed higher in the Appointment select list that of the respondents 5-10. The applicant's claim for higher inter-se seniority in the gradation list over his seniors who had not obtained Phd degree as on 1-01-2017 is solely based on his acquiring Phd degree ahead of the respondents 5-10 but the respondent 5-10 have time until October 2017 to acquire the same and hence the challenge to the inter-se seniority of the respondents 5-10 solely on the ground of acquisition of Phd degree is premature. There is no provision for higher seniority if the Phd degree is acquired earlier but within the seven year period. The application is therefore, untenable and is accordingly, dismissed as regard the prayer sought in the application."
13. However, the Tribunal on its own issued
further direction to the respondent authorities, - 17 - observing that as per the recruitment notification and the appointment order, the appointees, i.e., respondent No.10 and others have not fulfilled the required condition of acquiring Ph.D. within seven years of appointment to service and they do not have any vested right to be continued in service in terms of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. Further, in the
order it is observed that the Tribunal was not shown
any provision in the Recruitment Rules or Recruitment Notification by which the time period for obtaining the Ph.D. can be relaxed and the consequences thereof. The observation of the Tribunal in directing to terminate the service of respondent No.10 and others stated in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, reads as under: "9. The reply statement of the respondent State raised very profound questions which require to be addressed to ensure that rule of law prevails and the process of recruitment and appointment does not degenerate into ad-hocism that we are afraid, the reply statement indicates. - 18 -
10. The respondent State have
justified the continuance and retention of the respondents 5-10 and others who have not secured Phd degree even at this stage (reply statement dated 28-03-2022) as is evident from the reply statement. This contention of the respondent State is untenable under law. At this stage, when it is much more than seven years since the applicant and others recruited and selected on the basis of the recruitment notification of 26-02-2009 have been appointed, appointees who have not fulfilled the recruitment condition of Phd degree within seven years of appointment to service do not have any vested right to be continued in service in terms of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. If the respondents 5-10 and others recruited, selected and appointed with the same recruitment norms, do not possess the requisite qualifications of obtaining Phd degree, for which seven years had been provided under the recruitment notification/ appointment condition, they are not entitled to be included in the gradation list after seven years of their appointment since their inclusion in the gradation list for seven years when they did not possess the Phd degree is conditional on their acquiring - 19 -
Phd degree within seven years of their appointment. We are not shown any provision in the recruitment rules/ recruitment notification by which the time period for obtaining the Phd Degree can be relaxed and the consequences thereof and hence we refrain from making any comments in the said matter. Time for compliance is three months from the date of this order."
14. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal, the show-cause notice dated 08.12.2023 came to be issued. It is in these circumstances, respondent No.10 is before this Court challenging the
order with respect to the directions issued to
terminate his services.
15. Heard Sri.Shreedhar G.Bidre., learned
counsel for Sri.raghavendra G.Gayathri., for the petitioner, Sri.Chandrashekar., learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri.V.Shivareddy., AGA for respondents 2, 3 and 5 and Sri.H.R.Showri., learned counsel for respondent No.4. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court on 22.02.2024, observed that - 20 - respondent Nos.6 to 10 are not necessary parties and there is no need to issue notice against them. This Court on 22.02.2024, was pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal at paragraph No.10 in Application No.5296/2018 dated 30.05.2022 vide Annexure-A and issued notice to respondents 1 to 4.
16. Sri.Shreedhar G.Bidre., with all
vehemence submits that a perusal of pleadings and prayer in Application No.5296/2018 indicates that neither there is any pleading nor any prayer for termination of service of respondent Nos.5 to 10, for want of Ph.D within seven years of their appointment. He further submits that it is trite law that the relief not found on pleadings should not be granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for which no prayer or pleading was made depriving the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. The cause title of the - 21 -
order passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that
the learned counsel engaged for respondent Nos.5 to 10 was not present when the matter was finally heard and disposed of. Respondent No.10 is highly aggrieved by the direction issued by the Tribunal which is neither pleaded nor sought. The order was passed without granting audi alteram partem which runs against the interest of respondent No.10. Further, he submits that in view of the clarification issued at Item No.53, the consequences of not acquiring Ph.D. within seven years from the date of appointment as per the existing norms earlier to the clarification the candidate would be reverted back. The same has been clarified in the clarification which we have already extracted above, that if a candidate could not complete his Ph.D. within seven years from the date of his joining, his increment shall be stopped until the Ph.D. is acquired. As respondent No.10 was not heard while issuing the directions, he was not in a position to place on record the documents now - 22 - placed before us. In these circumstances, he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in law as the same is hit by principles of natural justice and sought to allow the petition and quash the order of the Tribunal issuing directions to terminate the services of respondent No.10.
17. There is no dispute by respondent No.1
regarding the fact of absence of pleading and prayer as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned AGA Sri.Shivareddy., fairly submitted that the State in its statement of objection in fact brought to the notice of the Tribunal the clarification issued by A.I.C.T.E regarding the consequences of not-acquiring Ph.D. within seven years from the date of appointment. However, the same was not considered by the Tribunal. On the contrary, the Tribunal has observed that nothing is placed before it regarding the extension of time for Ph.D. - 23 -
18. Having considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that a relief which is not found on the pleadings should not have been granted. If the same is granted, it amounts to declining an opportunity to the other side to put forth its case and would result in the miscarriage of justice. The documents now produced before us were not placed before the Tribunal. The reason being respondent No.10 was not properly represented before the Tribunal and not notified of the consequence. Though the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by respondent No.1 - applicant challenging the final seniority list stated supra, but the further directions in the absence of any prayer or pleadings to that effect in the application, given the factual background amounts to passing orders without providing an opportunity to the respondent. - 24 -
19. The principles of natural justice demands the party whose interest is jeopardised be heard prior to affecting his interest.
20. As could be seen from the records, the
Tribunal in the order which was passed on 30.05.2022 at paragraph No.10 has even observed that the contention of the respondent State retaining respondents 5-10 and others who have not secured Ph.D even at the stage of filing the reply i.e., on 28.03.2022 is untenable in law, prima-facie as borne out from the records now produced before us vide Annexures-F, G and H, the observation of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. Had the respondent was given appropriate opportunities to place the records now produced before us, the question of such observation by the Tribunal perhaps could not have been arisen.
21. As the pleadings and prayer sought in the
application clearly indicates the challenge was only - 25 - with respect to claiming seniority by calling in question the final seniority list dated 11.01.2018, there is no occasion for respondent No.10 - petitioner to place all these records. However, since a direction issued in the order regarding termination of service which has culminated in issuing a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2023, made respondent No.10 to
approach this Court calling in question the order
dated 30.05.2022. As these documents were not available before the Tribunal, the case was not considered on its merits, and resulted in the observations only on the basis of the Notification and the appointment order. In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to quash the order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.05.2022 so far as the observations at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 and remand the matter to the Tribunal to consider the case of respondent No.10 - petitioner and pass appropriate order. - 26 -
22. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 30.05.2022 in Application No.5296/2018 passed by the Tribunal vide Annexure-A so far as terminating the services of respondent No.10 - petitioner is quashed.
(iii) The matter is restored only with respect to the hearing respondent No.10. Respondent No.10 is permitted to place the records now produced before us, before the Tribunal and take up all his contentions.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.02.2026 without awaiting further notice. - 27 -
(v) The registry of the Tribunal is directed to place the application before the bench on 23.02.2026.
(vi) The Tribunal is requested to dispose of
the application thereafter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of three months from the first date of appearance. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23