Allowed

Dr. P. Manjunatha v. Chancellor

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/36509/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition by assistant professors of Karnataka State Open University, holding that the 2012 Statutes under which they were absorbed were valid and subsisting, and quashed show-cause notices issued to discharge them.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Declared that the 2012 Statutes were valid and subsisting. Quashed the show-cause notices dated 06.02.2019. Directed restoration of any benefits of which the petitioners were de

Dr. P. Manjunatha Vs Chancellor — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.36509/2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 DR. P. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O PUTTALINGANAIKA OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT S HOSAKOTE (V & P) CHIKKAYYANNA CHATRA HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSURU - 571129 O/O DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN PSYCHOLOGY KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSORE – 570006.

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

2 DR T S HARSHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE T SATHYANARAYANA RAO OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT # 409, 2/1 MAIN ROAD, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, I BLOCK MYSORE – 570006. O/O DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,

¶11

KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MYSORE – 570006

¶12

3 DR C ANITHA

¶13

. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O LATE G CHIKKANNA

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶15

OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT # 447, I CROSS, VI MAIN H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSURU – 570022. O/O DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES & RESEARCH IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶16

4 DR SUMATI RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS W/O LATE K M GANESH OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 121, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, JANATHA NAGAR, T K LAYOUT MYSORE - 570009 OFFICE ADDRESS: DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE 2ND FLOOR, SCIENCE BHAVAN KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006.

¶17

5 DR SHAILESH RAJ URS G B AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE G B BASAVARAJ URS OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT # 363, 2ND CROSS, E BLOCK VIJAYANAGAR,. IIIRD STAGE MYSORE - 570017 O/O DEPARTMENT OF JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006.

¶18

6 DR C RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O CHIKKATHIMMAIAH OCCUPANT : ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT # 194, BELAGUM

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶20

¶21

MUDA EMPLOYEES LAYOUT I BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR DATTAGALLI, III STAGE , MYSORE - 570023 O/O DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006.

¶22

7 KUM NANDINI H M AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O MALLANNA H S OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # L-68, 5TH CROSS, UNIVERSITY QUARTERS MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE - 570006 O/O DOS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶23

8 DR D M MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O MAHADEVAIAH D M OCCUPANT: CHAIRMAN & ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 1000/B, A BLOCK, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 3RD STAGE DATTAGAHALLI KANAKADASANAGAR MYSORE - 570022 O/O DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI MYSURU – 570006

¶24

9 DR N C SUJATHA

¶25

. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O N S CHEEYANNA OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT FLAT NO S-5, 3RD MAIN ROAD, V V MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570006 O/O DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶27

AND RESEARCH HISTORY KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶28

10 DR VEERENDRA KUMARA K S AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SOMASHEKHARA OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 98, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE- 570022 OFFICE ADDRESS : DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006

¶29

11 BHAVYA D N AGED ABOUT 35YEARS W/O DR B J VIJAYKUMAR OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 71 1ST MAIN MAHAJANA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR , 2ND STAGE MYSORE - 570017 OFFICE ADDRESS : DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI MYSURU – 570006

¶30

12 SIRAJ BASHA R AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE R ISMAIL SAB OCCUPANT : ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 20, 3RD STAGE D BLOCK,VIJAYANAGAR MYSORE OFFICE ADDRESS : DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶31

13 SRI KANTH S AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE SWAMYGOWDA B M

¶32

*Page No.4 retyped & replaced vide Chamber order dated 22.06.2024

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶34

OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, R/AT # 17/75, SHUBHASHREE NILAYA KANAKANAGAR K R NAGAR TOWN MYSORE - 571602 O/O DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN ENGLISH KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006

¶35

14 DR JYOTHISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O M SHIVASWAMY OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT NO 398,10TH MAIN ROAD, B BLOCK, J P NAGARA MYSORE - 570031 O/O DEPARTMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH IN KANNADA KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006.

¶36

15 SRI NAVEEN G V AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O VENKATESH G OCCUPANT : ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # 2775/A, KURADH STREET GANJAM SRIRANGAPATTANA MANDYA- 571438 O/O DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MYSURU – 570006.

¶37

16 DR CHANDRASHEKARA Y P AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA Y C OCCUPANT : ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT NO 257/B, SECOND STAGE, GOKULAM,MYSORE O/O DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI MYSURU – 570006.

¶38

*Page No.5 retyped & replaced vide Chamber order dated 22.06.2024

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶40

17 DR KRISHNAPPA NIMBAKKANAVAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O GUDDAPPA OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT NO 846, 4TH MAIN, 1/D CROSS, I BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR,MYSORE. O/O DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶41

18 DR JANHAVI S S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O R SHVIARAJU OCCUPANT: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # L-8 7TH CROSS, UNIVERSITY LECTURERS QUARTERS NEAR JSS WOMEN POLYTECHNIC MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE – 570006. OFFICE ADDRESS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH HAMSA BUILDING, KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶42

19 DR. MADHURA A.S. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O. R.SHIVARAJU, OCCUPANT : ASSISTANT PROFESSOR R/AT # L-8, 7^TH CROSS, UNIVERSITY LECTURERS QUARTERS NEAR JSS WOMEN POLYTECHNIC MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE – 570006. OFFICE ADDRESS DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH HAMSA BUILDING, KARANTAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTAGANGOTRI, MYSURU – 570006.

¶43

…PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.PRATHAM.N., ADVOCATE FOR P-1 TO 8, 10 TO 19; SRI.M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.RACHITHA NANAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR P-9)

¶45

*Page No.6 retyped & replaced vide Chamber order dated 22.06.2024

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶47

AND:

¶48

CHANCELLOR

¶49

THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAVAN, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶50

REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶51

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 6^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶52

VICE CHANCELLOR THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY RAJ BHAVAN, RAJ BHAVAN RAOD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶53

THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHAGANGOTRI, MYSORE-570 006. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, MYSURU.

¶54

BOARD OF MANAGEMENT THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570 006.

¶55

…RESPONDENTS

¶56

(BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI.A.S.HARISH, AGA FOR R-2; SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; R-5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI.RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT ON I.A.2/2022)

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE 2012 STATUTE IS VALID AND IS STILL IN FORCE AND QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE

¶58

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶59

IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED:06.02.2019 P-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M, P-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M1, P-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-M2, P-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-M3, P-5 VIDE ANNEXUREM4, P-6 VIDE ANNEXURE-M5, P-7 VIDE ANNEXURE-M6, P-8 VIDE ANNEXURE-M7, P-9 VIDE ANNEXURE-M8, P-10 VIDE ANNEXURE-M9, P-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-M10, P-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-M11, P-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-M12, P-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-M13, P-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-M14, P-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-M15, P-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-M16, P-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-M17, P-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-M18 ISSUED BY R-4.

¶60

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The petitioners are all Assistant Professors working in the Karnataka State Open University (hereinafter referred to as “ the KSOU ” or “ the University ”, for brevity), who

¶63

had been initially appointed as Guest Lecturers at the KSOU during the period 2001-11 and were subsequently absorbed under a statute framed in the year 2012.

¶64

They are before this Court seeking a declaration that the 2012 statutes are valid and are subsisting. They are

¶65

also aggrieved by the show-cause notices issued to them from the University, calling upon them to furnish reasons

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶68

as to why their absorptions should not be cancelled. A prayer is also made to treat their appointment as valid and all of them are duly qualified in terms of the UGC Regulations, and in this regard, neither the University nor the State would have a right to interfere with their appointments or their continuance. Lastly, a prayer is made seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the 7^th Pay Commission pay scales to the petitioners along with the increments, as provided therein.

¶69

The undisputed facts of the case are that the University of Mysore had established an Institute of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education. On the establishment of the KSOU, this Unit was separated from the University and became independent. The teaching faculty of the said institute were also transferred to the KSOU.

¶70

The Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992 (“ the

¶71

Act ”, for short) was enacted to establish and incorporate an Open University at the State level for the introduction

¶72

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶73

and promotion of an Open University along with Distance Education Systems in the education pattern of the State, and also for the co-ordination and determination of the standard of such systems. This Act received the assent of the Governor on 08.11.1994 and was published in the Gazette on 11.11.1994. By way of a Notification, this Act came into force from 01.06.1996.

¶74

It appears that when the University was established, in order to cope with the teaching work, the University was forced to make temporary appointments and the Teachers who had been originally appointed by the University of Mysore had been transferred and they had actually completed about 20 years of temporary service. It appears that the University, for the first time, made regular appointments only in the year 2012 i.e., nearly 16 years after the Act came into force.

¶75

The petitioners are persons who have been appointed

¶76

as Guest Lecturers during the period 2001-11. In the year 2012, six Guest Lecturers filed W.P. No.6090-95 of 2012

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶79

seeking absorption. This Court, by an order dated 29.02.2012, directed the University to consider their claims for absorption.

¶80

However, the University rejected the said request, as a result of which, W.P. No.22190-95 of 2012 was filed

¶81

before this Court. This Court allowed said Writ Petition and quashed the decision of the University, by which the claim of the Guest Lecturers had been rejected and directed the University to re-consider the matter.

¶82

The University, thereafter, established a Committee

¶83

to consider the case of the Guest Lecturers. This Committee recommended the regularization of the 28

¶84

Guest Lecturers to the Board of Management on 28.12.2012. This recommendation of the Committee to regularize was approved by the Board of Management on 28.12.2012 and a decision was taken to frame necessary statutes.

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶87

Accordingly, on 19.01.2013, the draft - Karnataka State Open University (Creation of Posts and Absorption of Temporary Teachers) Statutes, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Statutes ”), were framed by the Board of Management.

¶88

The draft Statutes framed by the Management was sent to the Chancellor, and the Chancellor granted his assent to the Statutes on 06.05.2013. This was, thereafter, communicated by his Secretariat to the University on 07.05.2013.

¶89

On securing the assent of the Governor to the Statutes, the University proceeded to issue appointment orders on 10.05.2013. The appointment order indicated that their services had been regularized and the regularization was subject to the condition that they should pass National Eligibility Test (NET) / State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) or secure a Ph.D. degree within an

¶90

outer limit of five years, in case they had not already passed the said examinations. It was also indicated that if

¶91

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶92

the candidate had failed to pass the examinations within five years, the University reserved its right to review the order of regularization.

¶93

After the issuance of the regularization orders, it appears that an issue was raised in the Assembly regarding the absorption, contending that it was improper. The Hon’ble Minister promised the Assembly that the matter would be examined and suitable action would be taken. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor placed the matter before the Chancellor. The Chancellor, after considering the matter, concluded that the action taken to regularise was correct. In fact, the Chancellor opined that there was no substance in the allegation and that every point raised against the absorption had been explained and stated as follows –

¶94

“I have gone through the response filed by the V.C. of the K.S.O.U. dated 25.09.2013. I am satisfied that there is no substance in the allegations. Every point raised has been explained. With a view to protect the autonomy

¶95

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶96

of the University and respect for the institution, we should go by the Statute of the University and allow them to take decisions. I, therefore, close this matter and direct that such fishing expedition should not be encouraged.”

¶97

Thus, on the objections raised regarding the absorption of 28 Guest Lecturers, the Governor disagreed with the allegations and affirmed the passing of the Statutes.

¶98

This decision of the Chancellor was also taken note of by the Assembly and was placed before the House.

¶99

A year thereafter, it appears that the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University and other persons raised several complaints against the KSOU regarding certain irregularities therein and the Chancellor took note of these complaints and proceeded to issue a notice to the University to explain their stand with reference to the allegations made. One of the matters

¶100

15 -

¶101

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶102

which the Chancellor pointed out was that of regularization of 28 Guest Lecturers.

¶103

A month thereafter, on 19.12.2014, the Chancellor, under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000 (“ the KSU Act ”, for brevity), also appointed Dr.Justice K.Bhakthavatsala as a One-Man Fact Finding Commission and directed him to look into the allegations raised against the University. The One-Man Commission examined the matter and submitted a Report on 14.10.2015. The relevant part of this Report, insofar as it relates to regularization of 28 Lecturers, is reproduced herein:

¶104

Sl. No.	ISSUE	RECOMMENDATION
**	*****	*****
9.	Statue for Absorption of 28 Guest Lecturers as Assistant Professors:	(a) The Statute (Creation of Posts and Absorption of Temporary Teachers) 2013, is bad in law. (b) Absorption of all the 28 Guest Lecturers is illegal. (c) Only 6 Guest Lecturers namely Dr.Shanmuka, Dr.Sharnamma, Dr.Nagendra Kumar Sri.N.Krishnappa, Dr.Janakamma and Dr.Shailaja Shanbhag alone are entitled to be absorbed as Asst. Professors. (d) The Aforesaid 6 Guest Lecturers may be appointed as against the

¶105

16 -

¶106

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶107

	existing vacancy in the te faculty. (e) Since the other 22 Lecturers are not eligible absorbed, they shall be terminated or continu Guest Lecturers, subject availability of work load	aching Guest to be either ed as to the in the
	University and in acco	rdance
	with the KSOU Act, subject to the decision Committee to be constitu suggested above_(vide Sl._	1992, of the ted as No.5)
***	*****

¶108

It appears that thereafter, the Chancellor, on

¶109

10.12.2018, also proceeded to state as follows –

¶110

“No. GS 13 KOM 2014 (P-1) Dated:10.12.2018

¶111

From

¶112

The Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru.

¶113

¶114

The Registrar, Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangothri, Mysuru-570 006.

¶115

Sir,

¶116

Sub: Absorption of the Guest Lecturers as per the Statutes relating to the KSOU (Creation of Posts and absorption of temporary teachers)- fact finding report of Justice Dr.BhaktavatsalaDirection of Hon’ble Governor & Chancellor, Government Order and Audit Report-reg.

¶117

Ref: Your letter No. KSOU/RPA/58/2018-19, dated:26.10.2018.

¶118

¶119

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶120

With reference to the above subject, I am directed to state that the Hon’ble Governor and Chancellor has ordered to take steps strictly in accordance with law.

¶121

Further, you are request to communicate the action taken report immediately for perusal of Hon’ble Governor and Chancellor.

¶122

Your faithfully, Sd/(Prathibha D.Habbu) Under secretary to Governor(HH)”

¶123

In the meantime, the Audit Department had also raised objections for the extension of UGC pay scales to the petitioners. The State Government had also issued several reminders to the University regarding the Order passed by the Chancellor, and ultimately, the Board of Management considered the matter and decided on 04.02.2019 to act according to the advice of the Chancellor, and in order to comply with the principles of natural justice, proceeded to issue show-cause notices to the petitioners.

¶124

Pursuant to the said Resolution, show-cause notices have been issued to the petitioners and the same have been impugned in this Writ Petition.

¶125

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶126

A significant factor which is to be noticed is that this Writ Petition was filed on 19.08.2019 and during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Statutes which had been assented by the Governor on 06.05.2013 were published in the Gazette on 15.02.2022.

¶127

It is the contention of the petitioners that they were absorbed pursuant to the enactment of the Statutes, which had been enacted in the manner prescribed under the Act and thus, their services could not be disturbed. It was contended that as long as the Statutes remained unrepealed, their absorptions cannot be questioned, either directly or indirectly.

¶128

It is also contended that the Chancellor, in response to the objections raised, had categorically stated on 01.10.2013 that there was no substance in the allegations and the University should be permitted to go by the Statutes and protect its autonomy, and therefore, the Statutes was actually supported by the Chancellor and the proceedings were ordered to be closed. This decision by

¶129

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶130

the Chancellor was also placed before the Assembly and the Government was satisfied with the decision of the Chancellor. In this background, it could not be contended that the Statutes under which the petitioners were absorbed, was illegal.

¶131

It is also contended that the report of the One-Man Commission cannot be the basis for doubting the absorption of the petitioners. It is also averred that the view of the One-Man Commission that the statutes which enabled the absorption of the petitioners was illegal and void ab initio , is incorrect.

¶132

It was lastly contended that the observation of the One-Man Commission that the 22 Guest Lecturers absorbed by the University were liable to be discharged, or, in the alternative, be appointed as Guest Lecturers, was contradictory in nature. In the sense, the One-Man Commission accepted the fact that the Guest Lecturers were educationally qualified and therefore, could be

¶133

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶134

appointed / continued as Guest Lecturers but yet he had suggested that they be removed.

¶135

It is also submitted that the petitioners have joined the KSOU between the years 2001 and 2011 and have been working until their absorption in 2013. At this point in time, to contend that their absorption is improper, would not only be inequitable but would also be harsh on the petitioners who have given the best part of their academic life to the University.

¶136

The learned counsel appearing for the KSOU submitted that the Chancellor had ordered the University to take steps strictly in accordance with law and since the One-Man Commission had opined that the absorption of 22 Guest Lecturers was illegal, the University had no other option but to initiate proceedings to discharge the petitioners and therefore, the University cannot be found fault with for obeying the order of the Chancellor.

¶137

21 -

¶138

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶139

It is, however, to be stated here that on a specific query by the Court regarding the educational qualifications of the petitioners, the University did admit that all the petitioners possess the requisite educational qualifications as prescribed under the UGC Regulations.

¶140

Learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor contended that the Chancellor was empowered under the Act to order an enquiry and he had, accordingly, directed an enquiry to be conducted. He submitted that the result of the enquiry had established that the absorption of the petitioners was improper and therefore, it was imperative for the Chancellor to direct the University to take action strictly in accordance with law. It was contended that in light of the Commission’s findings, the action said to have been taken by the Chancellor cannot be found fault with, even if the petitioners did possess the educational qualifications as required under the UGC Regulations.

¶141

In this petition, two sets of impleading applications are filed, one supporting the petitioners and the other

¶142

22 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶143

opposing the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants who supported the petitioners and the Learned Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants who supported the respondents, argued on the same lines as the Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶144

In light of these contentions and laid up submissions, the question that is to be considered in this case is:

¶145

Whether the University was justified in issuing a show-cause notice to discharge the petitioners in light of the fact that the Statutes framed in 2012, under which the petitioners were regularized, had not been repealed and continued to subsist?

¶146

In order to appreciate the controversies raised in this Writ Petition, it would be essential to have an overview of the Act and the Statutes, which would be relevant for the purpose of this case.

¶147

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶148

The KSOU was incorporated as a non-profit organization with the objective of introducing and promoting an Open University and Distance Education Systems in the educational pattern of the State, and also for the co-ordination and determination of the standard of subsistence. As the KSOU is declared to be a non-profit institution, it is, therefore, clear that the object of the University is to ensure that an Open University is established, and Distance Education Systems are brought in place.

¶149

In order to achieve this object, Section 5(1)(xxii) of the Act has conferred powers on the University, which reads as follows –

¶150

“5(1)(xxii) to appoint either on contract or otherwise, Visiting Professors, Emeritus Professors, Consultants, Fellows Scholars, Artists, Course writers and such other persons who may contribute to the advancement of the objects of the University.”

¶151

24 -

¶152

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶153

Thus, a specific power conferred on the University is

¶154

the power to appoint, either on contract basis or otherwise, Visiting Professors, Emeritus Professors, Consultants, Fellows Scholars or such other persons who may contribute to the advancement of the objects of the University.

¶155

Chapter III of the Act enumerates the provisions in relation to the Officers of the University. Section 7 states there shall be nine (9) named officers, apart from such other officers as could be declared by the Statutes.

¶156

Section 8 deals with the functions of the Chancellor. The Chancellor has the power under Section 8(2) of the Act to cause an inspection / enquiry in respect of any matter connected with the administration and finance of the University. However, he is required to give notice and consider the representations of the University before causing an inspection or an enquiry under Section 8(2) of

¶157

the Act. In the enquiry so ordered, the University has been conferred with the right to appear through a

¶158

25 -

¶159

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶160

representative and be heard in the matter under Section 8(5) of the Act.

¶161

The Chancellor is, thereafter, empowered to address

¶162

the Vice Chancellor with reference to the results of the enquiry or inspection, along with his views and advice with regard to the action to be taken. On receipt of such advice from the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor is required to communicate the same to the Board of Management about the results of the inspection / enquiry and also the views of the Chancellor and the advice rendered by him for the action to be taken. The Board of Management is then required to communicate to the Chancellor (through the Vice Chancellor) of the action that it proposes to take or that has been taken pursuant to the inspection / enquiry.

¶163

Section 8(8) also provides for the Chancellor to issue such directions as he may think fit, if the Board of Management does not take action to his satisfaction and on such direction being issued, the Board of Management is bound to comply with the said directions.

¶164

26 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶165

It is, therefore, clear from reading of Section 8(1) to (8) that the Chancellor has been given the power to oversee the functioning of the University and if there are any irregularities, he can direct appropriate action to be taken in the form of an enquiry to be conducted and also ensure that his advice on the basis of the enquiry is taken and complied by the Board of Management.

¶166

Apart from the power of overseeing the working of the University, the Chancellor is also empowered under Section 8(9) to annul any proceeding of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances, by way of passing an order in writing. Thus, the Governor is also empowered to directly annul the proceedings of the University without having recourse to the procedure established under Section 8(2) to 8(8) of the Act. This is, however, subject to the condition that the Chancellor calls upon the University to show cause as to why such an order should not be made, before passing an

¶167

order.

¶168

27 -

¶169

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶170

In light of this statutory framework, the power of the Chancellor to have ordered an enquiry through a One-Man Commission and advice the University to take action cannot be found fault with.

¶171

It is not in dispute that ultimately, on 10.12.2018, the Chancellor only ordered that steps be taken strictly in accordance with law. The Chancellor did not specify a particular action to be taken, nor did he pass any order annulling the decision of the University.

¶172

Section 8(6) of the Act which would be relevant in

¶173

this regard states as follows:

¶174

“8(6) The Chancellor may address the ViceChancellor with reference to the results of inspection or inquiry together with such views and advice with regard to the action to be taken thereon as the Chancellor may be pleased to offer and receipt of the address made by the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor shall communicate results of the inspection or inquiry and the views of the Chancellor and the advice rendered by him upon the action to be taken thereon.”

¶175

28 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶176

Though this provision empowered the Chancellor to

¶177

render his views and advice regarding the action to be taken, the Chancellor only stated that steps are to be taken in accordance with law.

¶178

It is also to be noticed here that under the provisions of the Act, three authorities are contemplated, and they are – the Board of Management, the Academic Council the Finance Commission. It is also permissible for other authorities to be declared by the Statutes to be authorities.

¶179

a. The Board of Management is declared to be the

¶180

Principal Executive Body of the University and is required to comprise of 15 members, and this Board is empowered to conduct all administrative affairs of the University.

¶181

b. The Academic Council is declared to be the Principal Academic Body of the University and has been given the Control and General

¶182

29 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶183

Regulation, accompanied with the responsibility for the maintenance of the standards of learning education etc.

¶184

c. The Finance Commission is given the duty to scrutinize the Annual Budget Estimates and make its recommendation to the Board of Management, and also conduct general examination of the accounts, consider the audit reports and make its recommendation, apart from examining all proposals of the University which involve an expenditure.

¶185

Chapter V of the Act contains provisions relating to Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Section 22(d) enables the Statutes to provide for the appointment of Teachers and other employees of the University, in addition to prescribing their emoluments and their conditions of service.

¶186

30 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶187

It is, thus, clear that the power to frame a statute in relation to the appointment of Teachers and other employees' rests only on the basis of the statutes that are to be framed and the statutes are to be framed by the Principal Executive Body i.e., the Board of Management.

¶188

Section 23 enumerates the manner in which the Statutes are to be made. It basically states that the Statutes made thereunder would require the approval of the Chancellor and it empowers the Chancellor either to assent to the Statutes or withhold his assent or remit the same to the Board of Management for re-consideration, if he so desires. It is explicitly stated that a new Statute or a Statute amending or repealing an existing Statute would not be valid unless it has been assented to by the Chancellor.

¶189

Section 23(5) also empowers the Chancellor to make a new or additional Statutes or amend or repeal the earlier Statutes made during the first three years of the commencement of the Act. Section 23(6) states that the

¶190

31 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶191

Chancellor has the power to direct the University to make provisions in the statutes in respect of any matter specified by him and in the event the Board of Management is unable to implement such a direction, the Chancellor is empowered to make or amend the Statutes suitably, after considering the reasons given by the Board of Management.

¶192

Section 23, thus, basically provides for the Board of Management to frame statutes for the purposes mentioned in Section 22, and a specific provision is made to frame a statute in relation to the appointment of teachers and other employees of the University, their emoluments and service conditions.

¶193

It is not in dispute in the present case that the KSOU did frame the Statutes to provide for absorption of the petitioners and this was done keeping in mind a similar statute made in the University of Mysuru, in relation to Guest Lecturers therein. The Statutes drafted by the Board of Management was presented to the Chancellor, who

¶194

32 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶195

gave his assent to the Statutes on 06.05.2013 and the same was also communicated to the University on 07.05.2013. It is, therefore, clear that the Statutes framed for absorbing the petitioners were made in the manner prescribed by the Act.

¶196

It is also pertinent to state here that despite the enquiry ordered by the Chancellor and its report, the Chancellor did not choose to issue any directions in respect of the Statutes framed in respect of absorption of the petitioners.

¶197

It is to be borne in mind that the power to repeal the Statutes is conferred only on the Board of Management

¶198

and even for the purpose of repealing the same, the assent of the Governor/Chancellor is a must.

¶199

In the present case, notwithstanding the report of the Commission, the fact remains that neither the Board of Management nor the Chancellor took the view that the Statutes framed by them, which enable the absorption of

¶200

33 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶201

the petitioners, was required to be repealed. If a statute has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the parent Act and unless the same is repealed in the manner indicated, the Statutes framed would be binding on everyone concerned and these Statutes cannot be ignored or discarded.

¶202

In this case, yet another factor to be kept in mind is that despite the submission of the report by the One-Man Commission and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the Government under Section 8(6), the State Government published the Statutes in the Gazette on 15.02.2022. If it was the intention of either the University or the Chancellor or the State Government to ignore the Statutes, the question of the Statutes being published in the Gazette would not arise. The publication of the Statutes in the Gazette, in a way, ratifies the Statutes itself and therefore, the benefit of a statute which is made

¶203

in accordance with the statutory provisions and is also published in the Gazette, cannot be undone because of an

¶204

34 -

¶205

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶206

observation by the One-Man Commission appointed by the Chancellor under Section 8(3).

¶207

It is also to be borne in mind that the Commission

¶208

did not state that the Statutes were required to be repealed and it merely took the view that it was illegal and void ab initio.

¶209

As already stated above, Section 22(d) of the Act empowers the Board of Management to frame statutes to appoint Teachers and other employees. It cannot be gainsaid that an absorption of a Guest Lecturer would also be a method of appointment, which the Board of Management could adopt. It is to be noted here that the Guest Lecturers in service had obviously contributed to the running of the University in a meaningful manner and their experience as Guest Lecturers over a long period of time would definitely come to the aid of the students and therefore, adoption of such a course of absorption cannot, in any way, be held to be illegal.

¶210

35 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶211

It is also not to be forgotten that in order to ensure that the absorption of the petitioners was legal, the Board of Management took the conscious step of framing a statute which was assented to by the Chancellor and also defended by him when allegations were made against the absorption.

¶212

Another factor to be considered in this case is that

¶213

the petitioners have been working as regular employees from 2012 i.e., for the past 11 years and at this point in time, if an order were to be made that their absorption would be illegal, they would be seriously prejudiced, inasmuch as all the petitioners would be disentitled from seeking employment elsewhere, by virtue of their respective ages.

¶214

It is also to be kept in mind that pursuant to the order of absorption, the petitioners have satisfied the educational requirements by obtaining the necessary educational qualifications and this is also a ground in their favour.

¶215

36 - NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶216

In light of the discussion made above, it is clear that the Statutes framed by the Board of Management, having been assented to by the Chancellor in 2013 and also defended by the Chancellor in the same year, in addition to being placed before the Legislative Assembly, the Statutes under which the petitioners were absorbed are

¶217

legal, valid and subsisting .

¶218

In this view of the matter, there cannot be any move to discharge the petitioners. As a consequence, the Writ

¶219

Petition is allowed .

¶220

It is declared that the Statutes have been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and have received the assent of the Chancellor before being published in the Gazette, and they are, therefore, valid and subsisting .

¶221

Resultantly, the show-cause notices issued by the University on the premise that the absorption of the

¶222

NC: 2023:KHC:45146 WP No. 36509 of 2019

¶223

37 -

¶224

petitioners are irregular / illegal cannot be sustained and the same are quashed .

¶225

As a result of the show-cause notice, if the petitioners are deprived of any benefits, the same shall be restored and the petitioners shall be granted the benefits.

¶226

Sd/JUDGE

¶227

hnm

Dr. P. Manjunatha v. Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. P. Manjunatha v. Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Darshan B B Vs Mandya Institute of

Smt Nagadevi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Santosh Mallanagouda Meti Vs the General Manager

Shri T Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Shankar Vs Karnataka State Teachers Benefits Fund

Smt.T.L.Bhagyalakshmi Vs Friends Cultural Educationla Trust (Svck)