- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4641 OF 2013 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: DR. M S KALAPPA S/O SUBBEGOWDA ASST. PROFESSOR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MALNAD ENGINEERING COLLEGE (AIDED) HASSAN-573201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.C. PARAMESWARAIAH, ADV. FOR SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADV.) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE CHAIRMAN MALNAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY M C E CAMPUS HASSAN-573201. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 4. THE PRINCIPAL MALNAD ENGINEERING COLLEGE HASSAN-573202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R1 & R2 MISS. RACHANA GANESH K., ADV. FOR SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADV. FOR R3 & R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 30(29).01.2010 PRODUCED AT ANN-C, & ORDER DATED 14.09.2009, VIDE ANN-C1 & FURTHER GIVE DIRECTION TO R1, DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION BANGALORE TO RECONSIDER THE PROMOTION OF PETITIONER AS PROFESSOR [REGULAR] EARLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a retired Associate Professor of 4th respondent-Engineering College is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of communication dated 29.01.2010 bearing No.CAE 34 ESI 4(A) 2008 Annexure-C and communication at Annexure-C1 bearing No.DDE:34:EST(4)A 2008 dated 14.09.2009, wherein the proposal of the promotion of petitioner to the post of Professor is rejected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.D.C.Parameswaraiah for Sri.Mahanthesh S Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Prathibha G.K., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Miss.Rachana Ganesh K., learned counsel for Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner possesses qualification of Ph.D and he was appointed as Assistant professor in the 4th respondent- Malnad Engineering College (“College” for short) in the year 1994. It is submitted that as on the date of submitting proposal for promotion by 3rd respondent- Malnad Technical Educational Society (for short “Society”) dated 04.08.2008, the petitioner has served for more than 25 years in the 4th respondent-College. Having qualification of Ph.D in Engineering, the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Professor in terms of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 the existing Cadre and Recruitment Rules and therefore, the proposal was forwarded. Learned counsel would submit that the proposal was kept pending and subsequently in the year 2010, the proposal is returned without approval, stating that in view of amendment to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, there is no provision for promotion and the post of Professor is to be filled up by direct recruitment. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate referring to statement of objections would submit that under Notification dated 06.09.2008 (Annexure-R1) Rules called “the Karnataka Education Department Services (Technical Education Department)(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules 2008 was brought in, wherein the method of filling up of the post of Professor in Engineering College was amended and as per the amendment, the post of Professor could be filled up only by direct recruitment. Since, filling up of the post of Professor is by direct recruitment, the petitioner would not be entitled for promotion. Learned Additional - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 Government Advocate would also submit that the proposal of the 3rd respondent-Society for promotion of the petitioner was forwarded subsequent to publication of draft rules on 05.05.2008. Therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. Moreover, it is submitted that under Government Order dated 16.06.2000 (Annexure-R3) wherein AICTE pay scales are adopted by the State Government, qualifications are revised for promotion or direct recruitment to the post of Professor. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent-College. The 3rd respondent-Society forwarded the proposal on 04.08.2008 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 which was received by the first respondent on 07.08.2008. Proposal for promotion of the petitioner stating that he possesses qualification of Ph.D and he has more than 25 years of service i.e., 14 years as Assistant Professor and 11 years as Lecturer was read by the authorities on 07.08.2008. By the time, the proposal was forwarded to the first respondent, the second respondent Government had issued Draft Rules dated 05.05.2008 inviting objections or suggestions from the persons likely to be affected. Subsequently, under Notification dated 06.09.2008, the amended 2008 Rules were brought into force. In terms of the said Rules, method of recruitment for the post of Professor in Engineering college is amended to say that the post could be filled up only by directed recruitment. If the proposal of respondent No.3 for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professor was earlier to publication of Draft 2008 Rules, then respondent Nos.1 and 2 could have been directed to consider the proposal. Since the proposal forwarded by respondent No.3 for promotion of the petitioner is subsequent to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5077 WP No. 4641 of 2013 publication of Draft Rules which has been finalized by 06.09.2008 notification, I am of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57