Rise and free yourself from nepotism: K’taka HC wakes up BU

We sincerely believe that the sentiments expressed by this court would be appreciated in the right spirit and we hope that the institution would rise and free itself from nepotism and ills that we have observed in the present case- HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A division bench of the High Court of Karnataka comprising Justice G Narendar and Justice ES Indiresh has disposed of a dispute over the appointment of lecturers to the Department of Women Studies that has been going on since 2006.

It has upheld a single-judge judgment from 2014 which had set aside the appointment of three lecturers. The three lecturers were appointed to the ‘women studies’ department, though their qualification was in Kannada and Sociology. The HC said that the University has failed to show that Kannada and Sociology were equivalent qualifications or interchangeable subjects to ‘women studies’.

The HC found that “selections of the successful candidates was in all probability, predetermined.” It imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 each on the university and the successful candidates who had approached the court. The BU had issued a notification calling for applications for the posts of lecturers in the said department.

NET was made a compulsory requirement, and as per the reservation roster, one post each was reserved in favour of SC, ST and GM candidates. The notification stipulated a minimum of 55% marks ‘in the relevant subject’.

However, what precisely the ‘relevant subjects’ were, was not explained. The entire controversy surrounding the selection arose around the vagueness and lack of detail regarding the ‘relevant/ allied/interchangeable/ interdisciplinary’ subjects the notification left unexplained.

Candidates who were not selected approached the High Court, which set aside the appointments of the three successful candidates in 2014. This order of a single-judge bench was challenged before a division bench by the university and also by the three candidates who were originally selected.

The judgment in this appeal was delivered on December 6, 2022. The original challenge to the appointment of the three candidates had contended that the Board of Appointment had no discretionary power in selecting persons who had not passed out in ‘women studies.’

Their second contention was that ‘relevant subject’ should have been strictly understood as subjects taught in ‘women studies’ in post-graduation courses. In its judgment, the HC said, “The perusal of the records placed before this court does not reveal any proceedings of any competent authority equating or holding the subjects of Kannada and Sociology as equivalent to ‘Women Studies’.

”The HC further noted that the Board of Appointment has not even given an opinion “that the subjects of Sociology and Kannada are equivalent to ‘Women Studies’.” Castigating the university, the HC said, “Academicians and intellectuals should act as torchbearers, wherever it concerns meritocracy. Indeed, their actions should be such that they light the path for the less fortunate and deprived, and should never be ones that cause some to grind an axe against the institution. Such acts of a few would downsize the reputation and standing of a hallowed institution.”