- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI RADHAKRISHNA C. SHASTRY, S/O CHIDAMBARA SHASTRY, AGE: 60 YEARS, WORKING AS PROFESSOR AND INCHARGE PRINCIPAL, MAHARAJA SANSKRUTH COLLEGE, MYSORE-570 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SACHIVALAYA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA SANSKRUTH UNIVERSITY, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560 008. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, MAHARAJA SANSKRUTH COLLEGE, MYSORE-570 004. MYSORE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 [PH]; SRI C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT No.Ka.Sum/Adalitha/Dave-ha.Kaa.Raa.Shaa/2012-12/550-1 DATED 03.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - UNIVERSITY AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.PÀ¸ÀA«/DqÀ½vÀ/zÁªÉ-WÀ.PÁ-gÁ.±Á./2012-12/550-1 dated 03.12.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 - University, by which his request to continue his service till he turned 62 years was not considered but postponed. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.2 to enhance the age of retirement from 60 years to 62 years by treating him as an employee of the respondent No.2 in the cadre of Professor and grant him all consequential benefits in terms of the Government Order dated 15.10.2009. 2.(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor on 28.10.1985 and was later promoted to the post of Professor on 08.12.1993. He was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 placed in independent charge of the post of Principal in terms of an official memorandum dated 25.11.2003. (ii). The respondent No.1 established the Karnataka Sanskruth University by a notification dated 09.04.2010 and the Karnataka Sanskruth University Regulations, 2009 (henceforth referred to as 'the Regulations, 2009) were approved by the Hon'ble Governor on 07.04.2010. Regulation 2(b) of the Regulations, 2009 defined a 'constituent College' as a unit of University college and under Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2009, University has administrative control over all the Sanskruth Colleges established in the State, either aided or un-aided. (iii). The petitioner contends that on 01.04.2011, the respondent No.1 transferred the respondent No.3 - College as a constituent of the respondent No.2 - University. Pursuant to the said Government order, the petitioner became an employee of the respondent No.2 - University and therefore, he claimed that he was entitled to the pay scale fixed by University Grants Commission (UGC). He, therefore, submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 through the Teachers' Association on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 05.06.2010 requesting for grant of UGC pay scales. The proposal was then forwarded by the respondent No.3-College along with its recommendations on 10.06.2010. The State Government by an order dated 15.10.2009, adopted the revised UGC Regulations enhancing the retirement age of teaching staff of Universities drawing UGC scales from the existing 60 years to 62 years. The petitioner claimed that after he was transferred by the State Government to the respondent No.2-University, he became an employee of the respondent No.2-University and was entitled for the benefit of the enhanced age of retirement from 60 years to 62 years. Accordingly, he submitted a representation on 16.10.2012 to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, to extend him the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation. As there was no response to the representation, he approached this Court in W.P. No.44344/2012. This Court in terms of the order dated 09.11.2012, directed the respondent No.2 herein - University to consider the representation of the petitioner as early as possible within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 3. Following the above, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.3-College was not directly administered by respondent No.2-University and there was no provision to treat the petitioner as a Professor of the respondent No.2-University and grant him the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation, until the process of absorption is complete. 4. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the Regulations, 2009, the respondent No.3 - College had become a constituent College of the respondent No.2 - University and therefore, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.2 - University and hence, the Government order dated 15.10.2009 was applicable to the petitioner also. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner had crossed the age of 62 years and therefore, the writ petition has spent in itself. They also contended that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 process of absorption of the respondent No.3 - College into the respondent No.2 - University was then still not complete and hence, the petitioner was not treated as an employee of the respondent No.2 - University and therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 - University is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 8. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No.1 as an Assistant Professor in the respondent No.3 - College in terms of a letter of appointment dated 28.10.1985. It is not in dispute that he was promoted as a Professor on 08.12.1993 at the respondent No.3-College. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was placed in independent charge of the post of Principal under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules in terms of a memorandum dated 25.11.2003 issued by the Director, Directorate of Urdu and Other Minority Linguistic Schools. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 established the respondent No.2-University in terms of a notification dated 09.04.2010 and thereafter, transferred the respondent No.3-College to the respondent No.2-University as a Constituent college. Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2009 invests administrative control in respondent No.2 - University over all Sanskrit/Sanskrut Colleges established in the State, either aided or un-aided. However, the process of absorption of the respondent No.3 - College into the respondent No.2 - University was not complete which is evident from the impugned endorsement. Therefore, unless and until the respondent No.3-College completely merged and was taken over by the respondent No.2-University, it could not be deemed that the teaching staff in the respondent No.3-College would become the employees of the respondent No.2-University. Therefore, the benefit of the Government order dated 15.10.2009 enhancing the age of superannuation of teaching community of Universities drawing UGC scales from the existing 60 years to 62 years with immediate effect and continuing the age of superannuation at 60 years in respect of other teaching staff was not applicable to the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner had crossed the age of 62 years and hence, the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9192 WP No. 10256 of 2013 petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs in this writ petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35