Karnataka High Court
Dr Sangamesh Patil A vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
-1-
WA No. 1239 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1239 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. 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 - 580 007
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCTE FOR
SRI PURUSHOTHAM V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by AMBIKA H B REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
COURT OF M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHANCELLOR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
RAJ BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATI CAMPUS
BANGALORE - 560 056
-2-
WA No. 1239 of 2022
4. DR .JAYAKAR S M
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER
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
(SRI S.RAJAHEKARA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT No.1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
ORDER DATED 31/10/2022 PASSED IN WP NO.10615/2022 (S-RES)
BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON BLE COURT AND
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 31.10.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.10615/2022.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ appeal are as under:
The appellant was appointed as a Professor in the discipline of Industrial Chemistry, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga and he was -3- WA No. 1239 of 2022 also appointed as a Member of the Karnataka University Syndicate for a period of one year on the basis of seniority. On 11.05.2017, the Search Committee recommended the panel of 3 names including the appellant for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University. The Chancellor, vide order dated 28.03.2018, appointed Dr.Manjunatha Krishnappa Naik as Vice Chancellor, University of Agriculture and Horticulture Sciences, Shivamogga with the concurrence of the State Government. On 12.06.2018, the Chancellor appointed respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. The appellant aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University preferred a writ petition in W.P No.55552/2018 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 24.09.2019 allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant and quashed the appointment of respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. Aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition, respondent No.5, State Government, Chancellor as well as the University filed different writ appeals in W.A Nos.3779/2019, 3780/2019, 3839/2019 and 3909/2019. The Division Bench, vide order dated 16.03.2022 dismissed the writ appeals and confirmed the order passed by the -4- WA No. 1239 of 2022 learned Single Judge. Respondent No.5 aggrieved by the order passed in the writ appeals, preferred Special Leave Appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.5254-5256/2022. During the pendency of special leave appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the term of office of respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University came to an end in the normal course on 12.06.2022. Further, during pendency of special leave appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court, a fresh notification was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Vice Chancellor. In pursuant to the notification, vide order dated 11.07.2022, respondent No.4 was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. By the order dated 18.07.2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeals. The appellant aggrieved by the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University filed writ petition in Writ Petition No.10615/2022. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.-5-
WA No. 1239 of 2022
3. Heard Sri N.Ravindranath Kamath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the notification issued during pendency of Special Leave to Appeals is illegal and further, the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University is contrary to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of writ petition in Writ Petition No.55552/2018. He submits that the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition was not disturbed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Special Leave to Appeals. He further submits that though the appellant has won the battle, he could not get the fruits of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. He further submits that the respondent could not have issued a notification during the pendency of the Special Leave to Appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, he submits that the learned Single Judge without considering the said aspect has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Hence, on this ground he prays to allow the writ appeal.
-6-WA No. 1239 of 2022
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Respondent No.1 issued notification dated 12.06.2018 by which respondent No.5 was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. The appointment of respondent No.5 was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.55552/2018 before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, vide order dated 24.09.2019 and quashed the appointment order of respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor. The said order was the subject matter in Writ Appeals No.3779/2019 and connected matters. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.03.2022, dismissed the writ appeals and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed in the aforesaid writ appeals was the subject matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeals Nos.5254-5256/2022. During pendency of the special leave to appeals, the term of office of respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University has come to an end in the normal course on 12.06.2022 and since the -7- WA No. 1239 of 2022 respondent No.5 had served out the entire term as Vice Chancellor, there would be no occasion in that event to appoint the appellant as Vice Chancellor in his place. A fresh incumbent i.e. respondent No.4 has been appointed as Vice Chancellor on 11.07.2022. The appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No.10615/2022. The Apex Court while disposing of the aforesaid leave to appeals has 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 of the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded a finding while disposing of the appeals that respondent No.5 is entitled for all terminal benefits, whose turn has been completed, shall be payable on that basis. Pursuant to the notification issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner/appellant has not made any application nor participated in the selection process of Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. The appellant has no right to challenge the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University. Further, the learned Single Judge placing reliance on the notification has recorded a finding that the appellant was not eligible to apply for -8- WA No. 1239 of 2022 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 the application pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.2022, the appellant was aged about 65½ years and the appellant had no clear 4 years service to apply, which is one of the requirement under the notification inviting applications and further, the learned Single Judge has extracted clause (1) (iii) of the said notification in paragraph 14 of the impugned order. As per clause (1) (iii) of the said notification, Vice Chancellor could not hold the office until he attains the age of 67 years and further for appointment as Vice Chancellor he should have 4 clear years of service and if person is having less than 4 years of service, such person would not be eligible to apply for selection process of Vice Chancellor of the University. Admittedly, the appellant was aged about 65½ years as on the date of notification dated 20.05.2022 and he was not having 4 clear years of service. The learned Single Judge considering the said aspects has rightly recorded a finding that the appellant has no right to challenge the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor and further, observed that the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor on the ground -9- WA No. 1239 of 2022 that the appellant has not made any application for appointment as Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University pursuant to the notification dated 20.05.2022. The learned Single Judge considering the entire material on record was justified in passing the impugned order.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 has committed any error in issuing notification during the pendency of the special leave to appeals. We have perused the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid special leave to appeals. There was no specific order prohibiting the State Government from issuing notification. As observed above, the term of Vice Chancellor came to an end on 12.06.2022. The appellant cannot be appointed as Vice Chancellor on the basis of earlier notification. The tenure of Vice Chancellor under the earlier notification came to an end. So, respondent No.1 issued notification dated 20.05.2022 inviting applications for the said post. The post of Vice Chancellor is a statutory post and the same cannot be kept vacant for a long. We do not find any fault with the notification issued by the State Government. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the notification would not have been issued by the respondent No.1
- 10 -
WA No. 1239 of 2022during pendency of the Special Leave to Appeals, cannot be accepted.
9. In view of the above discussions, we do not any error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of this Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the following ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3