ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Notification dated 6-7-2005 vide Annexure-C issued by the Assistant Registrar, Bangalore University, notifying the appointment of respondents 4 to 13 as temporary lecturers in the University Law College, Bangalore. Petitioners are also seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to select and appoint them to the post of part-time and full-time lecturers in Law in the University Law College strictly following the provisions of Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in University and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.
2. The 3 petitioners are Advocates practicing in Bangalore. They have passed Masters Degree in Law with distinction in different branches of law. They have been teaching in the University Law College as Part-time Lecturers since last few years. They assert that they satisfy the minimum qualification required for the post of Lecturer, in that, the 1st petitioner has passed NET (National Eligibility Test for Lectureship) and the 2nd petitioner has submitted a thesis to the Pondicherry University for award of Ph. D and the 3rd petitioner has passed LL.M. and belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Their grievance is that the respondent-University without following the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (Karnataka Act No. 29 of 2001) and the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualification required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (for short, 'the University Grants Commission Regulations'), has proceeded to recruit and appoint ineligible candidates as Lecturers, both part-time and full-time in the University Law College, Bangalore. The interview for selection to the posts in question was held on 18-6-2005. The petitioners participated in the interview held. Having regard to their eligibility and merit, they expected that they would be selected. However, instead of selecting the petitioners who were qualified and meritorious, the respondent-University has appointed the contesting respondents 4 to 13 as Lecturers both part-time and full-time although they did not possess NET in Law or had not completed M. Phil. Degree nor had submitted Ph. D thesis in the concerned subject is what is contended. While respondents 4 to 8 have been selected as part-time Lecturers, respondents 9 to 13 have been selected as full-time Lecturers. It is thus pointed out that the entire process of selection of respondents 4 to 13 is vitiated. It is further contended that they had made representations dated 19-7-2005 addressed to the Chancellor of the University pointing out the illegality in the selection process, but no action was taken on the petition filed by them. Hence, being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondents 4 to 13, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking reliefs as aforementioned.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri A.V. Gangadharappa reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that none of the respondents 4 to 13 have the requisite qualification as prescribed in the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission. Drawing the attention of the Court to Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 1 which makes it clear that the 2000 Regulations prescribing minimum qualifications framed by the University Grants Commission are made applicable to Universities established or incorporated under the Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act and every institution or an affiliated college recognised by the Commission. Drawing particular attention to Regulation 2 providing for qualifications for the Lecturers, he submits that a person to be eligible for being appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of the institutions including a constituent or affiliated college must possess qualifications as prescribed in the annexure appended to the Regulations. The annexure appended to the Regulations at Clause 1.3,3 dealing with Lecturers states that besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. The note appended to the Rule states that NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph. D degree. However, the candidates who have completed M. Phil, degree or have submitted Ph. D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination. These Regulations have come into force with effect from 4-4-2000 and are very much applicable to the selection process undertaken by the University in the instant case as the Notification inviting applications is issued on 18-5-2005.
4. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the University ought to have followed the provisions contained under Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act for making the selection and the appointments. He has relied on Sub-sections (4), (6), (7) and (8) of Section 53 to contend that the posts were required to be widely advertised; teachers who are already in the service of the University possessing minimum qualification and fulfilling other requirements ought to have been called for interview and the Board ought to have interviewed and adjudged the merit of each candidates by awarding marks in accordance with the qualifications advertised and their performance in the interview by following the method of interview, as prescribed by the statutes and further by following to the reservation provided for by the State Government vide Notifications issued in that regard in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other categories. He submits that as the University has resorted to selecting and appointing candidates who did not possess the required qualification, the entire selection process and the appointments are liable to be set aside In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Ravinder Sharma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (1995)IILLJ589SC and T.G. Chandrashekharappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1998(6) Kar. L.J. 326 : 1999 Lab. 1C. 1406 (Kar.).
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay has supported the process of selection and the appointments made. Reiterating the stand taken in the statement of objections, he has contended that the appointments of Lecturers in the Universities are governed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission from time to time. The University Law College, Bangalore, is a constituent college of Bangalore University and is administered and managed by the University. He submits that Section 53 of the Act deals with permanent appointments of Lecturer on regular basis whereas Section 55 deals with anointments of part-time Lecturers and Section 56 deals with Temporary Appointments in the University. Justifying the action taken by the University, he submits that proper procedure was followed in inviting applications as required and contemplated under Section 55 of the Act. The Board of Appointment constituted under Section 55(1) of the Act interviewed the eligible candidates and based on the performance of the candidates and taking into account their qualifications, the Board prepared the list of selected candidates and forwarded the same to the Syndicate which is the Appointing Authority. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 21-6-2005 has approved the list sent by the Board and therefore the appointment of respondents 4 to 13 is legal and valid is- his contention. He further contends that a pass in NET examination is not mandatory so far as temporary appointments are concerned and therefore the contention urged in this regard by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
6. Out of the contesting respondents 4 to 13, only respondents 5 and 7 are represented through Advocates whereas respondent 8 appears in person. Respondent 5 has filed a memo dated 17-10-2005 stating that he had already tendered resignation to the post of part-time Lecturer which has been accepted. He has prayed for deleting his, name from the array of parties. Respondent 8 has filed statement of objections contending that he possesses the requisite qualification namely National Eligibility Test for Lectureship and that the appointment made is strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 55 of the Karnataka State Universities Act.
7. During the course of arguments it is brought to the notice of the Court that some of the Lecturers do possess NET qualification. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the party appearing in person Sri Girikumar have submitted that some of the respondents have passed NET and the matter requires verification. Unfortunately, none of the other respondents who are selected and appointed are before the Court and the Court does not have the advantage of their stand in the matter. In the circumstances, I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the party-in-person the respondent 8.
8. Upon careful examination of the entire materials and the various provisions referred to by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties, it is seen that the appointments in the University for the post of Lecturers for the constituent college namely University Law College, Bangalore are governed by the provisions contained in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with the appointment of teachers and other employees of the University. Section 53 which deals with appointment of teachers and librarians refers to appointments of lecturers and librarians in general on regular basis. Section 54 pertains to appointment in accordance with the promotion schemes of which we are not concerned. Section 55 deals with appointment to part-time posts and Section 56 deals with temporary appointments. One of the points urged is that appointments ought to have been made as per the procedure laid down in Section 53.
9. As can be seen from the order of appointment, copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, the University has proceeded invoking the provisions of Section 55 of the Act while appointing 10 persons as part-time/full-time Temporary Lecturers in the University Law College. The honorarium payable is stipulated at Rs. 10,000/- p.m. for full-time Temporary Lecturers whereas it is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- for part-time Temporary Lecturers. The full-time Lecturers are required to teach from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. whereas part-time Lecturers are required to teach for 12 hours in a week. Having regard to the nature of appointments made and the honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-prescribed for the posts, it cannot be said that the appointments are permanent and regular appointments. The order of appointments makes it clear that it is for the academic year 2005-2006 only. A regular appointment is required to be made as against a sanctioned vacant post carrying a prescribed pay scale. No pay scale is attached to the post to which the appointments are now made on part-time/full-time basis as a temporary measure for a single academic year. Therefore, Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 is right in contending that it is Section 55 which is applicable and not Section 53 to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is the contention of the University that the provisions of Section 55 have been scrupulously followed. There is an advertisement published calling for posts. The Board constituted for the purpose of making the selection has chosen the candidates and has sent the same for approval of the syndicate and the appointment is made only for a period of one year. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of any requirements of Section 55 of the Act in making the selection and appointment in the present case.
10. The next contention that is required to be examined pertains to the lack of eligible qualification as prescribed in the minimum qualification Regulations framed by the UGC in the year 2000 as respondents 4 to 13 do not possess a pass in NET. The respondent-University in its statement of objections has contended at paragraph 2 that pass in NET examination is not a mandatory requirement in respect of temporary appointments. Therefore, the question that is required to be examined is whether the requirement of a pass in NET is a mandatory requirement in the case of temporary appointments made vide Annexure-C. The Regulations framed in the year 2000 by the University Grants Commission provides in Regulation 2 as under:
2. Qualification.--No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in University or in any of institutions including constituent or affiliated colleges recognised under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or in an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he/she does not fulfill the requirements as to the qualifications for the subjects as provided in the Annexure:
Provided that any relaxation in the prescribed qualifications can only be made by the University Grants Commission in a subject in which NET is not being conducted or enough number of candidates are not available with NET qualifications for a specified period only. (This relaxation, if allowed, would be given based on sound justification and would apply to affected Universities for that particular subject for the specified period. No individual applications would be entertained):
Provided further that these regulations shall not be applicable to such cases where selection of the candidates having had the then requisite minimum qualification as were existing at the time through duly constituted Selection Committees for making appointments to the teaching posts have been made prior to the enforcement of these regulations.
11. The Annexure to the Regulations at Clause 1.3.3 dealing with Lecturers reads as under:
1.3.3 Lecturer.--Good academic record with at least 55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter Grades O, A, B, C, D, E and P at Master's Degree level, in the relevant subject from an Indian University, or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University.
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET) for Lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Note.--NET shall remain the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph. D degree. However, the candidate who have completed M. Phil, degree or have submitted Ph. D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31st December, 1993, are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.
It is thus clear from the reading of the provisions as extracted herein above that NET is a compulsory requirement for appointments as Lecturers. Even for candidates who possessed Ph. D degree, it is made compulsory. However a relaxation is provided to the effect that those who have completed M. Phil, degree or have submitted Ph. D thesis in the concerned subject upto 31-12-1993 are exempted from appearing in the NET examination.
12. If a qualification is prescribed for a post as a minimum eligible qualification, the same is applicable to the post to which it is prescribed whether the incumbent to the post is appointed on permanent basis or on temporary basis. There cannot be two qualifications, one for permanent employees and another for temporary employees. The whole object of framing these regulations of the year 2000 by the University Grants Commission is to insist upon certain minimum qualifications for Lecturers so as to clothe them with the requisite efficiency to discharge their duties effectively. This is done keeping in mind the interest of the student community and the system as a whole. That being the position, it is not open to the University to contend that the minimum qualification requirement of a pass in NET is only directory and not mandatory, insofar as temporary appointments are concerned. Such an intendment is not forthcoming from the regulations either in expresses terms or by necessary implications. Therefore, it is not open to construe the provision in that manner. Hence, it has to be held that if the candidates selected do not possess the minimum qualifications as prescribed in the 2000 Regulations framed by the UGC, their appointment cannot be sustained.
13. It has remained a disputed question as to whether all the respondents 4 to 13 possess the requirement of pass in NET or not. Having regard to the disputed question of fact involved and particularly having regard to the fact that most of these respondents have not appeared before this Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the University to examine this aspect of the matter with reference to the qualifications possessed by them and if it is found that any of the respondents 4 to 13 do not possess a pass in NET, necessary orders have to be passed cancelling their appointment. So far as respondent 8 is concerned who has appeared in person, he has produced the certificate showing that he possessed a pass in NET. The certificate is dated 6-4-2005, well-before the issue of the Notification calling for applications. Therefore, it has to be held that the selection and appointment of respondent 8 is legally tenable. Therefore, the verification of the qualification and eligibility of respondents 4 to 7 and 9 to 13 alone shall have to be undertaken by the University. As respondent 5 has tendered his resignation, question of passing any order in respect of his appointment or subjecting his appointment for verification does not arise.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the University to conduct verification regarding the requirement of pass in NET by respondents 4, 6, 7 and 9 to 13 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in the light of the observations made above. The parties to bear their respective costs.