Karnataka High Court
Dr S M Hurakadli S/O Maharudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2021
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
W.A. No.100284 OF 2021 (S-TR)
BETWEEN
DR. S.M. HURAKADLI,
S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
R/O: RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
BELAGAVI-591156
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE & SRI. S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
UNDER SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION UNIVERSITIES-2,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
BELAGAVI-591156.
3. RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
2
VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
BELAGAVI-591156.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. DR. VIRANGOUDA B PATIL,
AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: PROFESSOR,
R/O B.V.BHOOMRADDI COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. VIDYAVATHI M.KOTTURSHETTAR, ADDL.
ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH,
AGA FOR R1)
(BY SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYED THAT AFTER
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.102361/2021 AND FURTHER WP
NO.102361/2021 FILED BY THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER MAY
KINDLY BE ALLOWED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant has called in question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2021 passed in WP No.102361/2021 ,whereby the petition at the first instance of Dr. S.M. Hurakadli (the appellant herein) challenging the 3 Notification dated 26.7.2021 at Annexure-B, whereby in the place of petitioner/appellant, respondent No.4 was appointed, came to be rejected.
2. Parties are referred to be their ranking before the learned Single Judge for the purpose of convenience.
3. The facts made out are that the petitioner was appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) as per Notification dated 11.2.2020 at Annexure-A in terms of Section 18(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short, 'Act') until further orders. By notification dated 26.7.2021, in place of petitioner, respondent No.4 came to be appointed citing public and administrative reasons until further orders and by same notification, petitioner's services were repatriated to the parent department.
4. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said notification had challenged his removal on various grounds including that no reasons are assigned for curtailing the tenure of the petitioner and Section 18 of the Act envisages that Registrar (Evaluation) shall be whole time officer of the University. Accordingly, removal of the 4 petitioner without assigning any reasons when the petitioner had worked for a short tenure and considering that he is due for retirement in November, 2022 was illegal and arbitrary. It was further contended that post of the Registrar (Evaluation) being vacant at the time of appointment of the petitioner, his removal in a summary manner considering that the Registrar (Evaluation) performs important functions including being in-charge of conduct of examinations was an anti-thesis of the principle of security of tenure and being an arbitrary exercise of power ought to be set-aside.
5. Reliance was also placed on the order passed in WP No.1231/2020 dated 13.8.2020, wherein the learned Single Judge had an occasion to interpret Section 18(1) of the Act and had opined that though Section 18 did not mention any tenure of such appointee there ought to be a tenure which ought to be reasonable, neither too short nor too long. Further it was pointed out that the learned Single had clarified that expression "pleasure of chancellor"
being absent in Section 18, there was no warrant to read 5 into the said Section the expression "pleasure of chancellor". Petitioner had also assailed the appointment of respondent No.4 contending that respondent No.4 was working in the KLE Technological University and appointment of Registrar (Evaluation) under Section 18 is to be limited to faculty of University and such University would mean 'University' under Section 2(13) of the Act. Learned Single Judge, however, has rejected the petition while observing that the appointment of the petitioner was made until further orders and the impugned notification was passed after lapse of more than one year and that the power to appoint would also include power to remove while observing that the Government was well within power to appoint and remove the Registrar (Evaluation).
6. The said order has been assailed while contending that the grounds made out in the petition have not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge appropriately. It is contended that the Government has failed to establish the existence of public and administrative interests in appointing respondent No.4 in 6 place of the petitioner, that the appointment of respondent No.4, who was an outsider to the University as defined under Section 2(13) of the Act could not have been done in terms of Section 18(1) of the Act and also that the learned Single Judge did not take note of the order passed in WP No.1231/2020 which provided for a fixity of tenure, copy of which was enclosed at Annexure-C.
7. On the other hand, Smt. Vidyavati M Kotturshettar, learned Addl. Advocate General has contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is required to be upheld while drawing attention to the order of appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-A, which provided that the appointment of the petitioner was made subject to further orders and that the order at Annexure-A specifically provided that the service conditions would be specified by a separate order. It is pointed out that subsequently by Government order dated 6.8.2020, terms and conditions of service of the petitioner have been detailed, according to which, period of tenure was such that it would cease from date of termination by the 7 government without assigning any reasons. Attention is also drawn to other contentions which provide that the government had reserved right to terminate the appointment of the officials at any time without assigning any reasons and consequently, the services of the appointee shall stand repatriated to the parent organization. Accordingly, it is submitted that action of the government has been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge and no interference is called for.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also supports the order of the learned Single Judge and would contend that use of expression "any university" in Section 18 would have to be construed as permitting, any senior faculty from any University other than Universities specified under Section 2(13) of the Act to be appointed under Section 18(1) of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference.
9. It must be noted that Section 18 of the Act does not provide for any tenure. However, it is also to be 8 noticed that the Registrar is to be a full time officer. Appointment of the petitioner by order dated 11.2.2020 as per Annexure-A was until further orders. Further in the order at Annexure-A, it was specifically provided that the service conditions relating to his appointment would be contained in the separate order that would be passed. If that were be so and as pointed out by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the separate order has been passed on 6.8.2020 detailing service conditions, wherein again government reserved right for termination without assigning any reasons, the petitioner cannot contend that there has to be fixity in tenure. As on date, the petitioner has continued in office from 11.2.2020, approximately for a period of one year nine months.
10. Insofar as contention that the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.1231/2020 has not been taken note of, it must be noted that the learned Single Judge has relied on the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.617/2021 and connected 9 matters disposed off on 25.09.2021, while justifying the inclusion of 'doctrine of pleasure' in Section 18 of the Act.
11. However, it must also to be noted that the tenure of the petitioner was clarified by order dated 6.8.2020 clarifying the tenure as mentioned in the order of appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-A and conferring right on the State to terminate the tenure simpliciter. Such facts are not made out as being preset in the case which was the subject matter of the proceedings in WP No.1231/2020. The Court while deciding WP No. 1231/2020 did not have the occasion to look into the fact situation as available in the present case. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order passed in WP No.1231/2020 would not be applicable. Accordingly, insofar as the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the order whereby respondent No.4 was appointed in place of the petitioner and petitioner was repatriated to the parent department does not call for interference. No other grounds are made out for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.
10
12. Once the grounds are made out to uphold the order of repatriating the petitioner to his parent department, the question of looking into the portion of the order whereby the respondent No.4 was appointed in place of the petitioner strictly would not arise as right of the petitioner is dependent on the strength of his own case. However, though the learned Single Judge has recorded findings regarding the validity of the appointment of respondent No.4 while interpreting the words "any University" under Section 18 of the Universities Act, we are of the view that observations regarding competency of appointment of respondent No.4 made by the learned Single Judge are superflows which needs to be set aside. Once the right of the petitioner to continue has been negatived, there was no necessity of entering into the question regarding validity of the appointment of respondent No.4.
13. Insofar as the alleged illegalities pointed out as regards to the appointment of respondent No.4 we leave it 11 open for the Government to look into the matter without recording any finding in that regard.
14. Before parting while we affirm order of the learned Single Judge it would be appropriate to observe by way of a suggestion that wherever appointments are made to posts with responsibility including that of the Registrar (Evaluation), while noticing nature of functions being performed by him in terms of Sec. 18(3) of the Act and noticing that he is also a Member of the Syndicate, the academic council and finance committee, it would be appropriate for the Government as far as practicable to provide fixity of tenure. The said observation is to be confined to the realm of a suggestion.
15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off affirming the order of the learned Single Judge subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JTR/Bvv