Karnataka High Court
Dr.K. Thippeswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7586
WP No. 22393 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22393 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. K. THIPPESWAMY
S/O KAMPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
BANGALORE NORTH UNIVERSITY,
TAMAKA, KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 103.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by
MARIGANGAIAH REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PREMAKUMARI DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Location: HIGH (UNIVERSITY), M S BUILDING,
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. BANGALORE NORTH UNIVERSITY
REP. BY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)
TAMAKA, KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR- 563 103.
3. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7586
WP No. 22393 of 2024
JNANA SANGAMA,
BELAGAVI- 590 018.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W
SRI SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1
SRI SANTOSH NAGARALE, ADV. FOR R3
R2-SERVED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
14.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-E); QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 14.08.2024 BEARING NO. ED 131 UDV 2024 (2)
PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNEXURE-E) AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS
REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), BANGALORE NORTH UNIVERSITY,
KOLAR AND INCLUDING THE COST OF THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, working as Professor in the 3rd Respondent- Visveswaraya Technological University (for short "VTU") now working as Registrar (Evaluation) of 2nd respondent-University is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning Annexure-E, order bearing No.ED 131 UDV 2024(2) dated 14.08.2024 under which, the petitioner is repatriated to his parent University i.e., 3rd Respondent-VTU on the ground that the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 petitioner would not fulfill conditions of Section 18(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short "2000 Act").
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish for petitioner; learned Additional Advocate General Sri.S.A.Ahamed along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Santhosh S Nagarale, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, working as Professor in the 3rd Respondent- VTU was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) in the 2nd Respondent-University under Section 18(1) of 2000 Act. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a senior faculty of department of Computer Science and he is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed as Registrar under Section 18(1) of 2000 Act. Learned counsel placing reliance on the documents produced along with memo dated 19.02.2025 submits that he is one of the senior -4- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 faculty of the department of Computer Science. The petitioner is repatriated to 3rd respondent-VTU on the ground that the petitioner is not a senior faculty. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.S.A.Ahmed for respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner is not a senior faculty of the University established under Section 3 of 2000 Act. Further, learned AAG invites attention of this Court to Section 2(13) of 2000 Act which defines "University" and submits that Visveswaraya Technological University is not a University established and incorporated under 2000 Act. He submits that 3rd Respondent-University is established under Visveswaraya Technological University Act, 1994. Further, learned AAG would submit that the petitioner is not a senior faculty in the department of Computer Science. Computer Science Department is headed by one Sri.Shanmukappa A Angadi, Professor. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim as senior faculty of Computer -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 Science department. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether a faculty of 3rd Respondent-VTU could be appointed as Registrar of 2nd Respondent-University?
6. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to 3rd Respondent- VTU and working as Professor in the department of Computer Science. The 3rd Respondent-VTU is established under the provisions of 1994 Act whereas the 2nd Respondent-Bangalore North University is established and incorporated under 2000 Act. Section 2(13) of 2000 Act defines "University", which reads as follows:
"2(13) "University" means a University established and incorporated under Section 3."
In terms of the above, for the purpose of 2000 Act, University would mean that "University" established under -6- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 2000 Act. As the 3rd Respondent-VTU is not a University established under 2000 Act, the petitioner would not be eligible for consideration of his case for appointment as Registrar of 2nd Respondent-University.
7. Section 18 of 2000 Act reads as follows:
"18. The Registrar (Evaluation):-
(1) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time officer of the University. The State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, not below the rank of Group-A Senior scale or a senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University:
Provided that where no such person is available then the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Syndicate from out of a penal of not less than three persons recommended by the Vice Chancellor. If none of the persons in the penal is approved by the Syndicate within the time prescribed by the Statutes, the Chancellor ,ay, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor appoint such other person as he deems fit to be the Registrar (Evaluation). The terms and conditions of service and emoluments of the Registrar (Evaluation) so -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 appointed shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor.
(2) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a Member of the Syndicate, the Academic Council, Finance Committee and all the Faculties.
(3) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be in charge of the conduct of examinations and all other matters incidental thereto and ancillary therewith and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes or Ordinances, or as may be allocated to him by the Vice-Chancellor.
(4) The Registrar (Evaluation) may be assisted by one or more Deputy Registrars (Evaluation) and Assistant Registrars (Evaluation).
Section 18(1) of 2000 Act would permit appointment of an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Services not below the rank of Group-A Senior Scale or senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University. A senior faculty member of the University would be eligible for appointment as Registrar (Evaluation). The word "University" used under Section 18 of 2000 Act would mean any University established and incorporated under Section 3 of 2000 Act. As the 3rd -8- NC: 2025:KHC:7586 WP No. 22393 of 2024 Respondent-University is not a University established under Section 3 of 2000 Act, it would be unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the petitioner is a senior faculty or not?
8. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0