ORDER
Mahendra, J
1.These appeals are by (the appellants who were) the respondents and are directed against the order dated 13-9-1984 of Chandrakantaraj Urs, J: allowing Writ Petition No. 21899 of 1980 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein who were the petitioners therein. Writ Appeal No. 2073 of 1984 is filed by one Dr. K. Ranga, who was respondent-2 and Writ Appeal No. 2075 of 1984 is filed by the Bangalore University which was respondent 1 in the said Writ Petition. In the course of our order we will refer to the parties to their array in the original Writ Petition.
2. The Bangalore University by its Notification Annexure B dated 30-4-1977 invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to posts in the various Departments of the University including a post of Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. B.M. Rajashekara-the third petitioner,Dr. Siddappa the fourth petitioner, Dr. Ranga the 2nd respondent and several others applied for the said post. Professor V.Ramachandran, the first petitioner and Professor B.L.C. Rajan the second petitioner were not the applicants to the said post. The Chancellor of the Bangalore University accepting the recommendations of the Board of Appointment appointed the second respondent as Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering in Scale 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500 by his order No. EST VCE APT. 980 dated 8-2-1980 Annexure-A. The second respondent reported himself for duty pursuant to the said order on 8-2-1980. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition on 26-11-1980 praying for quashing “the selection and appointment of the second respondent.”
3. The petitioner’s case is that they have the prescribed qualifications for being promoted as Professors, the second respondent though junior to them is promoted as a Professor in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering-an Undergraduate College-ignoring their seniority, the appointment to the post of Professor is required to be made by promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit under Section 49 (9) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the appointment of the second respondent not being in accordance with Section 49(9) of the Act, is bad in law. In support of their case they relied on a decision of this Court made on 7-10 1980 in Writ Petition Nos. 10731 of 1978 and 8215 of 1979 in Y.R. Satyanarayana Rao and Another-v.-The Bangalore University and Another. This decision was challenged in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981 and these appeals were disposed of on 6-7-1984* affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge with some modifications.
4. This Writ Petition came to be allowed on 13-9-1984 and the relevant portion of the order reads :
"xx xx xx 2) The Counsel for respondent-1 states that in the light of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981 rendered on 6-7-1984 this petition requires to be allowed. Recording that submission rule issued on 18-12-1980 is made absolute as the appointment of 2nd respondent is not in conformity with Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. It is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed.
3) Respondents while filling up that vacancy to which 2nd respondent was appointed shall consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to that post in that place. Direction to that effect will also issue.
xx xx xx This order is challenged in these appeals. 5. Sriyuths R.N. Narasimha Murthy and H.B. Datar, Learned Senior Advocates have appeared for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 2075 and 2073 of 1984 respectively. Sri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, Learned Senior Advocate has appeared for respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals.
6. The decision in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981 it was argued on behalf of the respondents supports their case that the appointment of Dr. Ranga is not under Section 49(9) of the Act, but under Section 49(3) of the Act and therefore the Writ Petition filed by the respondents has to be dismissed and the statement made on behalf of the University that the Writ Petition has to be allowed because of the decision in the above appeals is by an unfortunate mistake. It was further argued that the petitioners have approached this Court about nine months after Dr. Ranga reported for duty, they are therefore guilty of laches and have disentitled themselves from getting any relief.
7. The order of the Learned Judge, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners, is based on a statement made on behalf of the University and it is therefore not open to the University to challenge the order of the Learned Judge. It was argued that the appointment to the post of a Professor in an undergraduate College is required to be made by promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum-Merit as provided under Section 49(9) of the Act, and the appointment of the second Respondent not having been made under Section 49(9) of the Act, to the post of Professor in an Under-graduate College is liable to be quashed as held by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos, 171 and 172 of 1981.*
8. We may with advantage refer to certain provisions of the Act, before considering the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties.
9. Chapter VIII of the Act, relates to the appointment of Teachers and other Servants of the University. In this Chapter Section 49 regulates the appointment of teachers etc. Section 50 regulates the appointment of non-teaching staff, Section 51 regulates the appointment of Ministerial Staff, while Section 51A regulates the appointments of part time posts and Section 51B regulates Temporary
appointments and Section 51C provides for reservation of posts in promotional vacancies for Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and other socially and economically backward class of citizens.
10.The relevant portion of Section 49 of the Act with which we are concerned reads :
“49. Appointment of Teachers, etc. -(1) There shall be a Board of Appointment for selecting persons for appointment as Professors, Librarian, Readers and Lecturers in the University.
(2) xx xx xx xx? (3) The Registrar shall act as the Secretary of the Board of Appointment.
(4) Every post of Professor, Librarian, Reader or Lecturer to be filled by selection shall be duly and widely advertised together with the minimum and other qualifications, if any, required, the emoluments and the number of posts to be filled, and reasonable time shall be allowed within which the applicants may apply.
(5) xx xx xx xx
(6) The Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualifications advertised and prepare a list of persons selected arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the Chancellor who shall make appointments in accordance with the same.
[Explanation : -- Nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed a requiring the Chancellor to make appointments in accordance with the list where he is of the opinion that it does not satisfy the provisions of this Act or the statutes relating to such appointments.] (7) xx xx xxx (8) xx xx xxx
(9) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding Sub-sections, appointments to the posts of Professors and Readers in under-graduate colleges maintained by the University shall be made by such authority as may be prescribed in the Statutes by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from Readers and Lecturers respectively.
Provided that whenever any new subject is introduced, appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in such new subject shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by Statutes.”
11. Appointment of persons as Professors, Librarians, Readers and Lecturers in the University by direct
recruitment is required to be made after selection by a Board of Appointment constituted as provided by Section 49(1) to (8), But the appointment of persons as Professors and Readers in undergraduate Colleges maintained by the University is by promotion on the basis of seniority cum-merit from Readers and Lecturers respectively as provided by Section 49(9) of the Act. In other words, the posts of Professors, Librarians, Readers and Lecturers in the University are to be filled by direct recruitment after selection by a Board of Appointment, while the posts of Professors and Readers in undergraduate colleges
maintained by the University, are to be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from Readers and Lecturers respectively.
12. In Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981* affirming the decision in Writ Petitions Nos. 10731 of 1978 and 8215 of 1979, a Division Bench of this Court held that “Section 49 (9) of the Act, cannot be excluded for recruitment to the posts in that undergraduate College”. The reference to the under-graduate College in the said appeals is to the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering. The Division Bench his further observed :
“We, however, make it clear that the staff pattern and the method of recruitment created exclusively for the Post Graduate Department in that College would be completely outside the purview of Section 49 (9) We need not issue any specific direction in this regard as it is for the
University to take proper steps in the light of this order.
With these observations, the order of the learned Single Judge stands modified and the Writ Appeals are disposed of.”
13. It is, therefore, clear that it is only for appointing persons as Professors or Readers in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering-an under-graduate College, Sub-section (9) of Section 49 is attracted and appointments made in contravention thereof are bad in law. If as contended on behalf of the petitioners the second respondent is appointed as a Professor in Civil Engineering in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering -an under-graduate College-his appointment not being in accordance with Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act, the appointment has to be quashed and the University has to be directed to fill up the post of Professor by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from Readers as required by Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. But on the other hand, if the post of Professor to which the second respondent is appointed is not a post in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering, the Petitioners cannot get any relief.
14. “College” according to Section 2(2) of the Act, means an institution maintained by the University as such and includes an Institution admitted to the privileges of the University as an affiliated College of the University in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
15. “Department”, “Department of Studies”, “Post Graduate Department” and “Post Graduate Department of Studies” according to Section 2(2A) means, the Department, Department of Studies, Post Graduate Department and Post Graduate Department of Studies in the University run and
maintained by the University.
Provided that where the University is not running and maintaining any Department, Department of Studies, Post Graduate Department or Post Graduate Department of Studies, such teachers in the affiliated College or Colleges or Institutions as the Chancellor may, in consultation with the State Government, nominate shall be deemed to be the Department, “Department of Studies, Post Graduate Department or Post Graduate Department of Studies.”
16. “Teachers in the University” according to Section 2(8) means persons appointed for the purpose of imparting instructions in the University or in any College maintained by the University.
17. Under the Act, a University can maintain an Institution as a “College”. A University can also run and maintain a “Department”, “Department of Studies”, “Post Graduate Department” and “Post Graduate Department of Studies”. Persons appointed for the purpose of imparting instructions in the University or in any College maintained by the University are “Teachers of the University”. A “College” maintained by the University therefore does not include but is different from a “Department”, “Department of Studies”, “Post Graduate Department” or “Post Graduate Department of Studies” run and maintained by the
University. Posts of Professors and Readers imparting instructions in a College conducting courses leading to a Degree i.e., a College which is an undergraduate College, are required to be filled by promotion under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. Posts, if any, of Professors, Readers and Lecturers imparting instructions in the “Department”, “Department of Studies”, “Post Graduate Department” or “Post Graduate Department of Studies” which are run and maintained by the University are required to be filled by direct recruitment under Sub-section (4) of Section 49 of the Act.
18. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners, urged that in the notification calling for applications for appointment to the several posts, it is not stated that the persons appointed are required to impart instructions only to Post Graduate Students, obviously because the
appointments are against posts or vacancies in the under-graduate Colleges maintained by the University. The Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the
notification does not specifically state that the persons appointed are required to impart instructions only to Post Graduate Students. This by itself does not make the appointment to posts or vacancies in an under-graduate college. The notification clearly states that the applications are invited from qualified candidates for appointments to posts in the Bangalore University. The several departments and the number of posts or vacancies to be filled in each department are also given in the notification. It is clear from the notification that applications are invited for appointment to posts or vacancies in the University, i.e., in the several “Departments” run and maintained by the University. The notification does not state that the applications are invited for appointment to posts or vacancies in any College i.e., an Institution maintained by the University. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that by this notification applications are invited to fill posts or vacancies in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering an Institution maintained by the University-which posts or vacancies are required to be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. The
appointment of the second respondent is to a post or vacancy in the University and not in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering is also clear from Annexure-A dated 8-2-1980, the order appointing the second respondent, which clearly shows that on the recommendations of the Board of Appointment the Chancellor has appointed the second respondent as Professor of Civil Engineering against an existing post of a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering.
19. We are, therefore, satisfied that by this notification the University invited applications for appointment of persons for purpose of imparting instructions in the University through the various Departments run and maintained by it which are required to be filled by direct recruitment under Sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 49 of the Act and not for appointment of persons for purpose of imparting instructions in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering or any other College maintained by the University which are required to be filled by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act.
20. The petitioners are Readers imparting instructions in University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering, an institution maintained by the University. The second respondent is appointed as a Professor to impart instructions in the Bangalore University, in the Department of
Engineering run and maintained by the University and not to any post or vacancy in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering an under-graduate College.
21. A Division Bench of this Court has held in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981* that Sub-section (9) of Section 49 cannot be excluded for recruitment to posts in an undergraduate College. In other words it is held that appointment to posts of Professors and Readers in under-graduate colleges maintained by the University can only be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from Readers and Lecturers respectively as these posts come within the purview of Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. The petitioners are Readers imparting instructions in the University Visweswaraiah College of Engineering. They have therefore a right to be considered for appointment to the posts of Professors in this College on the basis of seniority-cum-merit under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. If the appointment of the second respondent is to any post of a Professor in this “College” ignoring the claim of the petitioners there cannot be any doubt that they would be aggrieved by such an appointment. But in this case as already noticed the second respondent is appointed as a Professor in the University against a post in the Department of Civil Engineering and not to a post in this College. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to challenge the appointment of the second respondent they being not persons aggrieved by this appointment.
22. The University invited applications for appointment in the year 1977. The second respondent was appointed as a Professor of Civil Engineering on 8-2-1980 and the petitioner took charge of the post on the very day. The petitioners have filed Writ Petition challenging the said appointment on 27-11-1980. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not aware of the notifications calling for applications or the appointment of the second respondent. In fact, petitioners 2 and 3 were also applicants along with the second respondent. It is stated in the petition “the third petitioner protested against this
appointment of the second respondent by selection almost immediately by written representations and by interviewing the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor stated that the matter would be looked into.” The Chancellor has appointed the second Respondent. The representation even according to the petitioners, is by the third petitioner and to the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioners have not given the particulars as to when the third petitioner gave the representation, when he met the Vice-Chancellor and what steps were taken thereafter. In the circumstances of this case, the petitioners have not explained the delay of over nine months in their approaching this Court. Parties are required to approach this Court for relief as expeditiously as possible and in any event they should not be guilty of laches. What the petitioners have stated in the Petition is no explanation of the delay but is only evidence of their negligence. The
petitioners, we are satisfied are guilty of laches and have disentitled themselves from getting any relief.
23. It was argued that the appeal by the Bangalore University is not maintainable as the order appealed against, is based on a statement made on behalf of the University. The order appealed against is based on a statement made on behalf of the University is not in dispute. It is the appointment of the second Respondent that is quashed recording the statement made on behalf of the first Respondent. The second Respondent is not bound by any such statement and he can maintain his appeal is not disputed before us. That being so, even if the first Respondent is bound by the
statement made on his behalf, it is still open to the second Respondent to satisfy the Court that his appointment is not under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act, and his appointment cannot therefore be quashed. That apart, what was stated on behalf of the first Respondent before the Learned Single Judge is :
“In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981 rendered on 6-7-1984 this Petition requires to be allowed”.
In the return filed, the first Respondent has taken a specific ground that the second Respondent is appointed not by promotion under Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act but by selection under Sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the Act. The above Writ Appeals related to claim for appointments to promotional posts in an under-graduate College and the Division Bench held that such
appointments are within the purview of Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. The Division Bench has not held that the appointment to posts or vacancies in the University or in the Departments run and maintained by the University also come within the purview of Sub-section (9) of Section 49 of the Act. The case of both the respondents in this case has been that the appointment is made not to a promotional post or vacancy in the College maintained by the University but to a post or a vacancy in the University in the Department of Civil Engineering run and maintained by the University. That being so, the statement made on behalf of the first respondent that the Writ Petition has to be allowed in view of the decision in Writ Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1981* and more so when the second respondent’s Learned Counsel was not present, we are satisfied, as argued on behalf of the Learned Counsel for the first respondent is by an unfortunate mistake. In these circumstances, we cannot agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners that the appeal filed by the first respondent has to be rejected as not maintainable.
24. In the result, we allow the appeals, set aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by respondents 1 to 4.