Karnataka High Court
Dr Sangamesh Patil A vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2022
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.10615/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. SANGAMESH PATIL A
S/O SRI AMARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT PALLAVI PLOT NO.23,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
ULAVI CHANNABASAVESHWARANAGAR,
DHARWAD- 580007.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SR.COUNSEL A/W
SRI K GOVINDARAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE CHANCELLOR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
RAJ BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
2
JNANABHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE-560056.
4. DR. JAYAKAR S.M.
MAJOR BY AGE
VICE CHANCELLOR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI NEAR NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072.
5. DR. VENUGOPAL K.R.
FORMER VICE CHANCELLOR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
NOW R/AT JNANABHARATHI
NEAR NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SUBRAMANYA, AAG. A/W
SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1
SRI B.N.AMBRISH, ADV. FOR R2
SRI T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R3-R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION IN E-NO. ED/122/UBV/2022
DATED 20.05.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E;
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
PASSED BY THE R-1 ADDRESSED TO R-3 IN COMMUNICATION
BEARING ED 272 UBV 2022 DATED 20.05.2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioner-former Professor of Chemistry is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notification bearing E-No.ED/122/UBV/2022 dated 20.05.2022; quash the impugned communication by respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.3 bearing No.ED 272 UBV 2022 dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-F); quash the impugned advertisement published in the newspapers dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure-G); for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2/University to publish the notification inviting applications to fill up the post of Vice-Chancellor; to quash the notification bearing No.GS 11 BUM 2022 dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure-A1) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed further in the selection process of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, until disposal of the special leave petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and for a direction to the second respondent-University to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- from 4 June 2018 till the petitioner is appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University or till such time as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.Ravindranath Kamath along with Sri.K.Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Advocate General Sri.R.Subramanya along with learned AGA Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.B.N.Ambarish, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent- Government and Chancellor of Universities under notification dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure-A) in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 (for short "2000 Act") appointed 5th respondent Dr. Venugopal K.R. as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University, Bangalore for a period of 5 4 years with effect from the date of assumption of office or till he attains the age of 67 years, whichever is earlier. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said notification appointing 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University was before this Court in W.P.No.55552/2018 and this Court, by order dated 24.09.2019 quashed the notification dated 12.06.2019 by which, respondent No.5 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single judge, all the respondents i.e., respondent No.5, State Government, Chancellor as well as University filed W.A.No.3779/2019 and other connected Appeals. The Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 16.03.2022 dismissed the Writ Appeals affirming the order of the learned Single judge. Against the order passed by the learned Single judge as well as judgment of the Division Bench, 5th respondent approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.5254-5256/2022. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by order dated 04.04.2022 stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 16.03.2022 6 and respondent No.5 continued to function as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University. In the meanwhile, the term of office of the 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University came to an end on 12.06.2022. Well before the date of expiry of tenure of 5th respondent as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University, the Government initiated process of selection of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University by constituting Search Committee under Notification dated 20.05.2022, and also on the same day, issued notification inviting applications from the eligible distinguished Academicians/Professors. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.07.2022, disposed of the SLP with an observation that since the Appellant i.e., respondent No.5 herein, had served out the entire term as Vice-Chancellor, there would be no occasion in that event to appoint the first respondent as Vice-Chancellor in his place and further observed that the writ petition which has been instituted before the High Court challenging the fresh notification shall be decided independent of the findings contained in the impugned order 7 of the High Court. Before disposal of SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition, challenging the notification inviting applications to appoint Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University as well as challenging consequential orders.
4. Initially, respondent No.4 was not a party to the writ petition and prayer to quash appointment of 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University was not the prayer. Subsequently, by way of impleading application as well as amendment application to implead 4th respondent as well as prayer to quash the appointment of 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor was made. This Court, by order dated 29.10.2022 allowed both the applications for impleading as well as amendment.
5. Learned senior counsel Sri.Ravindranath Kamath would contend that the matter with regard to appointment of Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP and as such, the respondent- 8 Government was not justified in inviting application to fill up the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. Further he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court while disposing of the SLP made it clear that the writ petition instituted challenging the fresh notification shall be decided independently of the findings contained in the impugned orders of the High Court. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to seek relief of appointment of petitioner as Vice- Chancellor in pursuance of the earlier notification which was the subject matter of the previous litigations. Learned senior counsel would contend that the petitioner having litigated upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and having succeeded in the writ petition as well as writ appeal which are not set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be entitled for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. It is submitted that respondent No.5 in spite of setting aside his appointment has served full term i.e., 4 years to which the petitioner was eligible. Learned senior counsel mainly contended that when the special leave petition was pending before the Hon'ble Apex 9 Court, without obtaining leave of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent-State Government could not have invited applications to fill up vacancy of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University on completion of term by the 5th respondent.
6. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the constitution of Search Committee under the impugned notification dated 20.05.2022 is in violation of law and provisions of 2000 Act. It is submitted that the persons attached with the Government could not have been appointed to Search Committee in violation of provisions of 2000 Act and it is submitted that overall selection procedure adopted by the respondent is in violation of provisions of 2000 Act and arbitrary. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioner did not get the post of Vice-Chancellor as well as the economic benefit from the said post. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner would be entitled for emoluments of Vice-Chancellor from the date of quashing the appointment of 5th respondent. Learned senior counsel Mr.Ravindranath 10 Kamath would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed in toto and when the writ petition is allowed, all the prayers are deemed to have been granted. The writ appeal filed by the 5th respondent was dismissed. When this Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the appointment of 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. Thus he prays for allowing the writ petition.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Subramanya for State taking through the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 18.07.2022 submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that there would be no occasion to appoint the first respondent i.e., petitioner herein as Vice-Chancellor in place of 5th respondent, since 5th respondent has served out his entire tenure as Vice- Chancellor. Further, he submits that in pursuance of the notification under challenge dated 20.05.2022 inviting 11 applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, the petitioner has not submitted his application. Moreover, he submits that as on the last day for submitting application, the petitioner was age barred and he had no clear 4 years tenure to consider his case for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Learned AAG would point out that learned Single judge allowed Writ Petition No.55552/2018 and consequently quashed the notification appointing 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, but the petitioner's prayer to appoint him as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University, was not granted. Hence, he submits that the petitioner at no point of time could have been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Learned counsel Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University and he had not applied in 12 pursuance of the notification dated 20.05.2022 which invited applications to fill up the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. It is submitted that as on the last date of submitting applications, the petitioner was aged 65½ years and he had no 4 years of clear service which was one of the requirement to become eligible for appointment as Vice- Chancellor of an University. Learned counsel would also submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court while disposing of the SLP has made it clear that the petitioner cannot be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, since 5th respondent has served out entire term as Vice-Chancellor. Learned counsel Sri.Sungay further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor since the petitioner has not made any application in pursuance of the notification dated 20.05.2022. He submits, a person who has not made application, has no locus to challenge the selection process or appointment made in pursuance of such notification. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 13
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.
10. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
It is an admitted fact that the notification dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure-A) appointing 5th respondent as Vice-
Chancellor of Bangalore University in exercise of power under sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of 2000 Act for a period of 4 years or till he attains the age of 67 years was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.55552/2018. This Court, by order dated 24.09.2019 quashed the notification dated 12.06.2018 by which, respondent No.5 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. All the respondents including respondent No.5 herein, filed writ appeals against learned single judge's order in W.A.No.3779/2019 and connected appeals. The Division 14 Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 16.03.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The order of learned single judge as well as judgment of the Division Bench was taken up in SLP (C) Nos.5254-5256/2022 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 04.04.2022 stayed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and by virtue of the interim order of stay, the 5th respondent continued as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. In the meanwhile, on 10.06.2022, 5th respondent completed his tenure in terms of notification dated 12.06.2018. Subsequently, pending SLP was disposed of, by order dated 18.07.2022.
11. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order dated 18.07.2022 in SLP Nos.5254-5256/2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:
"4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the term of office of the petitioner as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University has come to an end the normal course on 12 June 2022. Since the 15 petitioner had served out the entire term as Vice Chancellor there would be no occasion in that event to appoint the first respondent as Vice Chancellor in his place. A fresh incumbent, Professor Dr.S.M.Jayakara has been appointed on 11 July 2022.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent states that the fresh notification is a subject matter of an independent writ petition which is pending before the High Court. Be that as it may , since the term of the office of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University has come to an end in the normal course, it is not necessary for this Court to express any view on the question of law which was sought to be espoused in the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution. The writ petition which has been instituted before the High Court challenging the fresh notification shall be decided independent of the findings contained in the impugned order of the High Court."
A reading of the above portion of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that since respondent No.5 16 had served out entire term as Vice-Chancellor, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there would be no occasion to appoint first respondent i.e., petitioner herein as Vice- Chancellor in place of 5th respondent. It also noted that fresh incumbent Professor Dr.S.M.Jayakara, respondent No.4 has been appointed on 11.07.2022. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the present writ petition which was filed in the meanwhile challenging the fresh notification shall be decided independent of the findings contained in the impugned order of the High Court. Thus, there is no occasion or chance to the petitioner to seek appointment as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University in pursuance of the earlier proceedings before this Court as well as before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in its order dated 24.09.2019 in W.P.No.55552/2018 allowed the writ petition in toto. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for appointment as 17 Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, in pursuance of quashing of notification dated 12.06.2018 appointing 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor. There is no merit in the said contention for the reason that while allowing the writ petition, learned Single judge quashed the appointment of 5th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, but the petitioner's prayer to appoint him as Vice-Chancellor was not granted by the learned Single judge. It is true that the writ petition was allowed, but, to the extent of quashing the notification dated 12.06.2018 by which, respondent No.5 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University and further prayer of the petitioner to appoint him as Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University is not specifically granted and hence, the petitioner cannot seek relief which is not granted specifically by this Court. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University, since respondent No.5 had served out entire tenure as Vice-Chancellor.
18
13. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the subsequent notification dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-G) by which, applications are invited to fill up the vacancy of Vice- Chancellor of Bangalore University from the eligible, distinguished, Academicians/Professors and also notification dated 20.05.2022 constituting Search Committee under Section 14(ii) of 2000 Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied to the post of Vice-Chancellor pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.2022 calling applications from eligible candidates. A person who has not applied in pursuance of the notification and a person who fails to participate in the selection process would have no locus standi to challenge the selection process as well as selection made in pursuance of the notification inviting applications.
14. The petitioner was not eligible to apply for the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University in terms of the notification dated 20.05.2022, since as on the last date for submitting application pursuant to notification dated 19 20.05.2022, the petitioner was aged 65½ years and the petitioner had no clear 4 years service to apply, which is one of the requirement under notification inviting applications, which reads as follows:
"1(iii) As provided in the Section 14(5) and 14(6) of Karnataka State University Act, 2000, the Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor, hold the office for a maximum period of 4 years or until he attains the age of Sixty Seven years whichever is earlier. Consequently, a person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor shall have clear four years of tenure."
A Vice-Chancellor could hold office of Vice-Chancellor until he attains the age of 67 years. For appointment as Vice- Chancellor, one should have 4 clear years of service and if a person is having less than 4 years of service, such person would not be eligible to apply for the selection process of Vice- Chancellor of University under 2000 Act. Since the petitioner was aged 65½ years as on the last date for applying, in 20 pursuance of the notification dated 20.05.2022, the petitioner was not having 4 clear years of service.
15. Learned AAG Sri.R.Subramanya places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013(4) SCC 465 in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN v/s STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS to contend that, if a person is not eligible as per notification, then he may not be said to be an aggrieved person. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment reads as follows:
"10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India).
11. In Anand Sharadchandra Oka v. University of Mumbai, a similar view was taken by this Court, observing that, if a person claiming relief is not eligible 21 as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons."
The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that a person claiming relief to which he is not eligible as per the requirement, then he is not an aggrieved person in pursuance of the selection process. The principles laid down in the above decision would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. The petitioner has sought for salary of the post of Vice- Chancellor from June 2018. The petitioner would not be entitled for pay of the post of Vice-Chancellor since he has not functioned as Vice-Chancellor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the petitioner cannot be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, since 5th respondent has served out the entire tenure as Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has not made any application nor participated in the selection process of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University in pursuance of subsequent notification dated 20.05.2022. In the said 22 circumstance, the petitioner would not be entitled for any of the reliefs sought for by him in the above writ petition.
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that during the pendency of the SLP, the respondent-State Government ought not to have invited applications under notification dated 20.05.2022 to fill up the vacancy of Vice- Chancellor Bangalore University. Admittedly, there was no interim order restraining or prohibiting the State Government from filling up the post of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University. Moreover, a statutory post like that of Vice- Chancellor cannot be kept vacant for a long. Therefore, no fault could be found with the notification issued by the State Government. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only observed that it is open for the petitioner to challenge subsequent notification independent of the finding contained in the impugned order of the High Court. Thus, there was no impediment for the State Government to invite applications 23 under notification dated 20.05.2022 to fill up the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms