Dr. P.B. Badiger vs University of Mysore and Others

Acting Chief Justice-This appeal is directed against the order dated January 21, 1982 made by the learned single Judge in W.P. 5872 of 1977.

The primary question that arose for consideration in the writ petition was "Whether Dr. Vasantharaj, respondents herein, was qualified for appointment as Reader in the Department of Jainology and Prakrits in the Post-graduate Department, Manasagangotri, Mysore University, Mysore?" The learned Judge after examining the qualifications prescribed for the post answered the question in the affirmative. The same question arise for consideration in this appeal.

The appellant, respondent-3 and another were applicants for the post of Reader. The Board of appointment constituted under Section 49 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, interviewed the candidates on March 24, 1979. The Board, after considering the relative qualifications selected respondent-3 for the appointment. Accordingly, the Chancellor appointed him as Reader.

We may now set out the qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader. It is found in the notification dated June 4/6, 1977 issued by the University of Mysore. So far as it is relevant, it reads thus:

"UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

Mysore Viswavidyaniiaya Karyasoudha

"Crawfor Hall"

Mysore, dated 4/6th June 1977.

ADVERTISEMENT

Application in the prescribed form in Eight sets are invited for the following teaching posts on or before 8th July 1977 from duly qualified candidate of Indian Nationality to the following posts in the University of Mysore. Indian Nationals who are residing abroad may also apply:

C. POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT: MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE

Sl. No. Name of the Department No. of posts Additional qualification/Specialisation in addition to General qualification, if any.

1 2 3 4

DEPARTMENT OF JAINOLOGY AND PRAKRITS

Reader 1. The degree in (a) and (b) may be in Jainology or Sanskrit or Prakrits or Kannada or Philosophy or Ancient Indian History. The experience under (c) should be in the subject pertaining to Jainology.

Additional Desirables:

Publication of work of high standard in Jainology or Prakrits.

Note: Wherever the term degree/qualification as in (a) and (b) and (c) has been used under column No. 4 above means the general qualifications mentioned below for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers Respectively.

General qualifications prescribed for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the Post-Graduate Departments at Mysore, Konsje (Mangalore) and B.R. Project, Shimoga.

Readers: Essential: a) A doctorate degree or published work of an equally high standard.

b) Consistantly good academic record with I or high II Class (B+) Master''s degree in a relevant subject or as equivalent degree of a foreign University.

Note: 1. Having referred to the need for developing Inter disciplinary programmes the degrees in (a) and (b) above may be in relevant subjects."

It will be seen from the notification that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader are: (a) A Doctorate degree or published work of an equally high standard, (b) Consistantly good academic record with I or II Class (B+) Master''s degree in a relevant subject or as equivalent degree of a foreign University.

The degree in relevant subject has been explained under Note-(1) appended to clause (2)(b) of the said notification. It states that the essential degrees in (a) and (b) under clause (2) may be in relevant subjects having regard to the need for developing Inter disciplinary programmes.

Mr. Parthasarthy, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the degree in the relevant subject which the candidate is required to possess must be a degree in Jainology or Prakrits only and not in any other subject and since respondent-3 is not having that Master''s degree, his appointment cannot be sustained.

This contention, in our opinion, has been rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. There is no requirement under the notification issued by the University that the candidate for appointment as Reader in Jainology must have Master''s degree in Jainology or Prakrits. The requirement, among others, is that the candidate under Rule 2(b) must have Master''s degree in ''a'' relevant subject and not in ''the'' relevant subject. A relevant subject, in the context, does not mean only the subject of Jainology or Prakrits. Note-(1) to clause (2)(b) of the said notification which we have earlier set out clears the doubt, if any. It states that the degrees may be in the relevant subjects which in turn are specified in column No. 4 of the notification. It states that the degrees in (a) and (b) may be in Jainology or Sanskrit or Prakrits or Kannada or Philosophy or Ancient Indian History. That means a candidate who has obtained a degree in any one of these subjects is qualified for being appointed as Reader in Jainology. We, therefore, reject the contention.

Mr. Parthasarthy next contended that the degrees in (a) and (b) referred to in the notification are the additional qualification, apart from the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader. This again is making much of the ''heading'' of column No. 4 in the notification and overlooking the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader. We must first find out the essential qualifications prescribed for the post. The essential qualifications are set out in (a) and (b) of clause (2) of the notification. That expressly under Note-(1) thereunder, refers to degree in Jainology or Sanskrit or Prakrits or Kannada or Philosophy or Ancient Indian History. It is therefore, not an additional qualification, but an essential qualification.

It is no body''s case that the notification issued by the University is contrary to the Statute of the University. We have also perused the original Statute prescribing the qualifications for the post of Reader. The notification is clearly in consonance with the original Statute prescribing the qualifications for the said post.

There is no other contentions urged in this appeal.

The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.

Mr. Parthasarthy seeks a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that the case involves any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The Certificate prayed for is, therefore, refused.