Karnataka High Court
Dr T M Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18100
WP No. 9760 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 9760 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. T.M. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SRI. G. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS R/O. WARD NO.655,
12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
Digitally signed M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
by
MARKONAHALLI BANGALORE-560 001.
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA
AND THE CHANCELLOR,
MAHARANI CLUSTER UNIVERSITY,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. DR. MEERA B.K.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,
MAHARANI CLUSTER UNIVERSITY,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18100
WP No. 9760 of 2025
4. MAHARANI CLUSTER UNIVERSITY,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH
NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
SRI. K. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION DATED 28.03.2025 BEARING NO.GS 07 MCU 2024,
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged a notification bearing No.GS-07-MCU-2024 dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 by which, the respondent No.3 was appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 - University. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to appoint him as the acting Vice- Chancellor of respondent No.4 - University. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025
2. The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as the Director of the School of Humanities and Liberal Arts in respondent No.4 - University in terms of an order dated 10.10.2023. The incumbent Vice- Chancellor of respondent No.4 was appointed on 07.11.2020. On completion of the term of four years as prescribed under Section 14(6) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2000'), the senior most Director in respondent No.4 namely, Dr. Ushadevi C., was appointed by the respondent No.2 as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 in terms of the notification dated 08.11.2024. As Dr. Ushadevi C., attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2025, her tenure as the acting Vice-Chancellor also came to an end on 31.03.2025. In the meanwhile, the Special Secretary to respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 14.10.2024 to respondent No.4 seeking a list of senior most Directors of respondent No.4 to make arrangements for appointing an in-charge Vice-Chancellor under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000. The Under Secretary to respondent No.2 also sought for information as to whether there were any criminal cases/judicial enquiries/departmental enquiries or any other -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 enquiries pending or intended to be imposed against the Directors working at respondent No.4.
(ii) The petitioner contends that the then Vice- Chancellor of respondent No.4 addressed a reply dated 23.10.2024 and forwarded a list of senior most Directors, who were working in various Schools in respondent No.4. As per the said list, the name of the petitioner was at the top of the list as he was appointed as the Director on 16.10.2023. The respondent No.4 also addressed a letter dated 10.02.2025 to the Special Secretary to the respondent No.2 furnishing the list of senior most Directors of various schools in respondent No.4. The petitioner contends that he was the senior most Director eligible to be appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notification dated 28.03.2025 and appointed the respondent No.3, the senior most woman Professor of the Department of Zoology as acting Vice-Chancellor.
3. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner is before this Court.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025
4. The petitioner contends that as per Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, when a vacancy in the office of the Vice- Chancellor remains unfilled, the senior most Dean available in the University as the Chancellor may appoint, shall act as Vice- Chancellor and the person so appointed shall have all the powers and shall be entitled to all the privileges of the Vice- Chancellor and to such emoluments and allowances as may be determined by the Chancellor in accordance with the Statutes, if any, framed. He therefore, contends that though he was senior most Director and though respondent No.3 was not the senior most Dean or Director in the University she was appointed as an acting Vice Chancellor under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000. Therefore, he contends that the appointment of respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 falls foul of Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000 and hence, is liable to be set at naught. He further contends that the list of senior most Directors, which was forwarded by respondent No.4 to the Special Secretary to respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner was the senior most Director and therefore, he was entitled to be appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and claimed that respondent No.3 was not even a Director of any school of respondent No.4 and hence, she was not entitled to be appointed as such. She contends that the impugned notification is silent as to why the petitioner was not considered and as to how respondent No.3 was more suitable for the post. She contends that the impugned notification should contain the reasons and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot supplant any reasons. In support of this contention, she has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088];
(ii) Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [(1978) 1 SCC 405];
(iii) JVPD Scheme Welfare Trust vs. Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others [(2019) 11 SCC 361]
6. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, who has filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia contending that proviso to Section 14 of the Act, 2000 provides -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 for appointment of women as Vice-Chancellor of Akkamahadevi Women University. Similarly Section 3(1H) of the Act, 2000 deals with establishment of Maharani Cluster University which reads that there shall be established the Maharani Cluster University, Bengaluru, which shall be unitary in nature with headquarters at Bengaluru and territorial jurisdiction extending over Maharani's Science College for Women, Bengaluru, Maharani's Women Arts, Commerce and Management College, Bengaluru and Smt. V.H.D. Central Institute of Home Science, Bengaluru. It is contended that respondent No.4 is established with the objective of imparting quality education to aspiring female students and largely admits female candidates into its institutions. In furtherance of this objective, the respondent No.2 with an intent to better understand the academic and psychological needs of the girl students, has appointed respondent No.3, the senior most Professor as the acting Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4. It is submitted that by applying the analogy of Section 14(4) of the Act, 2000 which expressly mandates the appointment of a woman as Vice-Chancellor in the case of a Women's University, the respondent No.2 has acted in consonance with the spirit and object of the said -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 provision while appointing the respondent No.3. It is contended that respondent No.3 is the senior most Professor and competent and meritorious in all respects and therefore, considering her competence, the respondent No.2 appointed her as acting Vice-Chancellor and no illegality can be attributed to the acts of the respondent No.2.
7. (i) The respondent No.3 has also filed statement of objections contending that she was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1992 and was promoted as Senior Lecturer on 14.08.1999 and later as Associate Professor on 14.08.2007 and subsequently, as Professor on 14.08.2010. She was posted as Professor in the Department of Zoology on 14.08.2010 and was thereafter appointed as Head of the Department of Zoology from 02.06.2017 to 21.09.2021. It is contended that respondent No.3 is the senior most woman Professor of respondent No.4 - University. It is contended that respondent No.4 was established under the Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2019 and no statutes are framed by the respondent No.1 to govern the respondent No.4. However, all employees working under the respondent No.4 are Government employees. Therefore, it is contended that if statutes are -9- NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 framed by respondent No.2, employees may be absorbed into the respondent No.4. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are employees of respondent No.1 and therefore, in the event of any dispute relating to their employment, the petitioner is bound to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.
(ii) It is contended that Dr. Ushadevi C., was the former Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 and after she superannuated, the post of Vice-Chancellor fell vacant. The respondent No.2 was therefore, pleased to issue impugned notification dated 28.03.2025 under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000 appointing the respondent No.3 as the acting Vice- Chancellor since she was the senior most woman Professor of respondent No.4 - University. It is contended that respondent No.3 has taken charge on 29.03.2025 and has been functioning ever since then. It is also claimed that the assertion of the petitioner that he being the senior most Dean in the respondent No.4 - University is entitled for appointment as acting Vice- Chancellor, is misconceived. It is contended that though the petitioner is the senior most Professor, the respondent No.3 had entered the services before the petitioner and therefore, it is contended that respondent No.3 is senior than the petitioner.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 It is claimed that due to fortuitous circumstances, the petitioner was fast tracked to the post of Professor, while promotion of respondent No.3 was delayed. Therefore, it is contended that respondent No.2 in his discretion, felt it appropriate to appoint respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor.
8. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 raised the following contentions:
(i) that under Section 9 of the Act, 2000, respondent No.2 may either suo motu or on the recommendation of the State Government issue such directions as may be necessary or expedient in the interest of both administration and academic functioning of the University and in particular to ensure peace and tranquility and to protect the property and finances. She therefore, contends that the impugned notification appointing the respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor is in furtherance of the discretion vested in the respondent No.2 to give representation to a woman Professor of respondent No.4 to act as the Vice-Chancellor to ensure peace and tranquility in the University. She contends that respondent No.4 is a Women
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 University and therefore, the respondent No.2 felt it fit to appoint respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor.
(ii) that the petitioner and respondent No.3 are all employees of the Department of Collegiate Education and that after the Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2019, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were bound to opt to be absorbed into the services of respondent No.4. She contends that there were certain mistakes in appointing Deans and Directors of respondent No.4, which was under consideration and therefore, the respondent No.2 in his wisdom, felt it appropriate to appoint respondent No.3, the senior most Professor in respondent No.4 as the acting Vice-Chancellor. She further contends that under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, the discretion is vested in the respondent No.2 to appoint any person as the Vice-Chancellor and the word "may" appearing in Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, cannot be read as "shall", as that would be curtailing the discretion vested in the respondent No.2. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following case law:-
(1) Kali Pada Chowdhury vs. Union of India [(1962) SCC Online 103]
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 (2) Govindlal Chhaggan Lal Patel vs. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and others [1975 (2) SCC 482] (3) Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S. Deswal and others vs. Virender Gandhi and another [2020 (2) SCC 514]
(iii) that one Dr. V. Anuradha claimed to be the senior most in the gradation list and also senior in the list of Professors issued by the Department of Collegiate Education and therefore, had requested to provide an opportunity to serve as a Director of the School of Humanities and Liberal Arts. She contends that another person Dr. Vanishree R.K., had claimed seniority as the Director of School of Science, Maharani Cluster University and therefore, she too had laid a claim to the post of acting Vice-Chancellor. She therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to appoint respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor and also directed the respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry into all the allegations made such as opting-in and opting-out process of Maharani Cluster University and regularity in the appointment of Deans and Directors of respondent No.4. She therefore, contends that there is no illegality in the notification issued by the respondent
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 No.2 appointing the respondent No.3 as the acting Vice- Chancellor.
(iv) that respondent No.3 was the erstwhile Director of respondent No.4 in terms of a notification dated 18.03.2021. She contends that the words "senior most Dean available in the University" found in Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, not only includes the Deans in office but also erstwhile Deans of respondent No.4. Thus, she contends that respondent No.3 was eligible and qualified in all respects to be appointed as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that respondent No.3 was earlier appointed as a Director in terms of a notification dated 18.03.2021. Thus, he contends that respondent No.3 was eligible and qualified in all respects to be appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor.
10. An objection is filed by the petitioner to the claim of the respondent No.3 that she was appointed as a Director of respondent No.4 and has contended inter alia that though respondent No.3 was appointed by a notification dated 18.03.2021, she never took charge of the said office and never
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 performed the duties of a Director. It is further contended that the respondent No.4 while communicating the list of senior most Directors, did not consider the case of respondent No.3 but had considered the case of the petitioner and two others.
11. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.3 was the senior most woman Professor in the respondent No.4 and since respondent No.4 was primarily catering to the academic and psychological needs of girl students, respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to appoint respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor. He therefore, contends that there is no error committed by the respondent No.2 in appointing the respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor.
12. The file relating to the appointment of respondent No.3 was procured from the office of respondent No.2. The file notings at Sl.Nos.114(1)(a), 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) shows that some issues were considered before appointing the respondent No.3, one of which was that respondent No.4 was predominantly catering to the needs of girl students and therefore, it was desirable to have a woman as an acting Vice-
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 Chancellor. There was also some concern about the employees of the Department of Collegiate Education opting-in or opting- out of the service of respondent No.4.
13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Additional Government Advocate.
14. As regards maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were the employees of the Department of Collegiate Education and were posted at various schools of respondent No.4. The issue in the present case does not concern with terms and conditions of service. Therefore, there is no prohibition for exercise of power by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. The respondent No.2 being the Chancellor of respondent No.4 - University is statutorily empowered to make appropriate arrangements during the temporary absence of the Vice-Chancellor or in the event the post remains unfilled. Under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, if the office of the Vice- Chancellor remains unfilled, the senior most Dean available in
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 the University as the Chancellor may appoint, shall act as Vice- Chancellor. In the case on hand, it appears that the petitioner was the senior most Dean in the list forwarded by the respondent No.4 to the Special Secretary of respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 was not the Dean of respondent No.4 but was only a Professor in the Department of Zoology. When a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. When Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, mandates that whenever a vacancy in the office of Vice-Chancellor remains unfilled, it is the senior most Dean of the University, who may be appointed to act as the Vice-Chancellor, the respondent No.2 cannot arrogate to himself the power to appoint anyone else to act as the Vice-Chancellor. The claim of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that respondent No.4 was a Women University and therefore, a woman had to be appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor and that there were irregularities in opting-in/opting-out or in the appointment of Directors, really did not weigh in the mind of the respondent No.2 while appointing respondent No.3 as acting Vice-Chancellor. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 that the word "may" appearing in
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, cannot be interpreted as "shall", is inconsequential, as it is the senior most Dean, who has to be appointed as the acting Vice-Chancellor and the word "may" only signifies the discretion vested in the Chancellor to either appoint or not to. This however, does not mean that the Chancellor can appoint any person other than a Dean/Director as the acting Vice-Chancellor. The claim of the respondent No.3 that she was earlier appointed as a Director of respondent No.4 would not enure to her benefit as the words "senior most Dean available in the University" would mean that those Deans, who are officiating in the respondent No.4, who alone are entitled to be considered for the post of acting Vice-Chancellor and no one else. Respondent No.3 has not denied the claim of the petitioner that she did not take charge of the office of the Director of respondent No.4 - University. Under the circumstances, the contention of the respondent No.3 that she was appointed as the acting Vice-Chancellor in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, is liable to be rejected.
16. As regards claim that respondent No.4 is a Women University and therefore, respondent No.2 in his discretion felt it appropriate to appoint respondent No.3 as acting Vice-
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 Chancellor , does not stand to reason, as the Special Secretary to respondent No.2 when calling for the list of senior most Deans/Directors of respondent No.4, did not restrict it to women candidates. This apart, there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent No.4 is a Women University, where the Vice-Chancellor should be a woman as in the case of Akkamahadevi University. A perusal of the impugned notification does not show that this was the reason for considering the case of the petitioner. Similarly, it was not mentioned therein that there was any irregularity or illegality in appointing the petitioner as a Director and therefore, he was not considered. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot now supplement reasons to sustain the impugned notification. In that view of the matter, the impugned notification appointing the respondent No.3 as acting Vice-Chancellor is in violation of Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000 and therefore, warrants interference.
17. However, the claim of the petitioner that he alone should be appointed as the acting Vice-Chancellor, cannot be considered for the simple reason that it is for the respondent No.2 to exercise discretion to appoint the senior most person
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18100 WP No. 9760 of 2025 and therefore, this Court cannot arrogate to itself the power vested in respondent No.2 to appoint an acting Vice-Chancellor.
18. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned notification bearing No.GS-07- MCU-2024 dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.2, appointing the respondent No.3 as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 is quashed. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to consider appointing acting Vice-Chancellor in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000 and if the petitioner is eligible, the respondent No.2 may consider appointing him in accordance with law.
19. Office is directed to return the file summoned from respondent No.2, which is kept in the safe custody of Registrar (Judicial), to the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14