Allowed

Prof. Lokanath N.K. v. Prof. Sharath Ananthamurthy

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2024WA/1159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals against a Single Judge order setting aside the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore on grounds including ministerial interference, second panel, and non-application of UGC Regulations. Held UGC Regulations not adopted by Karnataka, selection complied with the KSU Act; interference under Article 226 uncalled for.

What did the court decide?

Order dated September 12, 2023 in W.P.Nos.9068/2023 and 11875/2023 set aside; writ petitions dismissed; no costs.

Prof. Lokanath N.K. Vs Prof. Sharath Ananthamurthy — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

W.A. No.1159/2023

¶2

C/W W.A. No.1199/2023

¶3

W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶4

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2023 C/W

¶12

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2023 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1446 OF 2023

¶13

IN W.A. No. 1159 OF 2023

¶14

BETWEEN:

¶15

PROF. LOKANATH .N.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL POST BOX NO. 405 MYSORE-570 005. …APPELLANT

¶16

(BY SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

1 . PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY

¶19

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶20

¶21

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF PHYSICS UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD R/O 498, SURAGI 6^TH A MAIN RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094.

¶22

2 . THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

4 . THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE REP BY ITS REGISTRAR VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL MYSORE-570 006.

¶25

5 . THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE-570 006. …RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 IN WA No.1159/2023; SHRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 IN WA No.1170/2023; SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 IN WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023; SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND

¶27

W.A. No.1159/2023

¶28

C/W W.A. No.1199/2023

¶29

W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶30

¶31

SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R3 IN WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023; SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 IN WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023)

¶32

IN W.P. No. 11875/2023

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

PROF. LOKANATH .N.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL POST BOX NO. 405 MYSORE-570 005. …PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

1 . DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. SONIDHI, 10^TH MAIN 19^TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU-570 030.

¶38

2 . THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001.

¶39

3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶40

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶41

¶42

4 . THE REGISTRAR MYSORE UNIVERSITY VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL MYSORE-570 006.

¶43

5 . THE CHAIRMAN THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE-570 006. …RESPONDENTS

¶44

¶45

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED 12/09/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.9068/2023 CONNECTED WITH WP NO.11875/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IN WP NO. 9068/2023 CONNECTED WITH WP NO. 11875/2023 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTION.

¶46

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶47

¶48

IN W.A. No.1199 OF 2023

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN

¶51

BENGALURU-560 001 …APPELLANT

¶52

(BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONIDHI, 10^TH MAIN 19^TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU-570 030

¶55

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2 M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶56

THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL MYSORE-570 006.

¶57

THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSURU-570 006.

¶58

PROF. LOKANATH N.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR

¶59

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶60

¶61

UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL POST BOX NO.405 MYSORE-570 005. …RESPONDENTS

¶62

(BY SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2; SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶63

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11875/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.11875/2023 AND ETC.

¶64

IN W.A. NO. 1201 OF 2023

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT

¶67

(BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶68

AND:

¶69

1 . PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF PHYSICS UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD R/AT 498, SURAGI 6^TH A MAIN RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094.

¶70

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶71

¶72

2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶73

3 . THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL MYSORE-570 006.

¶74

4 . THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSURU-570 006.

¶75

5 . PROF. LOKANATH N.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL POST BOX NO.405 MYSORE-570 005. …RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2; SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶77

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9068/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT

¶78

W.A. No.1159/2023

¶79

C/W W.A. No.1199/2023

¶80

W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶81

¶82

PETITION NO. 9068/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO. 9068/2023 AND ETC.

¶83

IN W.A. No.1446 OF 2023

¶84

IN W.P. NO. 9068/2023

¶85

BETWEEN:

¶86

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶87

…APPELLANT

¶88

(BY SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA)

¶89

AND:

¶90

1 . PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROFESSOR SCHOOL OF PHYSICS UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD R/AT 498, SURAGI 6^TH A MAIN RMV 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 094.

¶91

2 . THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001.

¶92

3 . THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE REP BY ITS REGISTRAR VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL MYSORE-570 006.

¶93

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶94

¶95

4 . THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI MYSORE-570 006.

¶96

PROF. LOKANATH .N.K AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL POST BOX NO. 405 MYSORE-570 005. …RESPONDENTS

¶97

(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) IN W.P. NO.11875/2023

¶98

BETWEEN:

¶99

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2 MS BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER

¶100

AND:

¶101

DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR S/O LATE ERANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. SONIDHI, 10^TH MAIN 19^TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU-570 030.

¶102

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶103

10

¶104

THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001.

¶105

THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR VISHWAVIDYANILAY KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL MYSURU-570 006.

¶106

THE CHAIRMAN SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MANASAGANGOTRI MYSURU-570 006.

¶107

PROF. LOKANATH N.K S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL, POST BOX NO.405 MYSURU-570 005. …RESPONDENTS

¶108

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 9068 OF 2023 C/W 11875/2023 (S-RES) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 9068 OF 2023 C/W 11875 OF 2023 (S-RES) AND ETC.

¶109

THESE WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶110

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶111

11

¶112

JUDGMENT

¶113

These intra court appeals arise out of common order dated September 12^th , 2023 passed in W.P.No. 9068/2023 and W.P. No. 11875/2023.

¶114

One Prof.Loknath N.K has been appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysore.

¶115

Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy has challenged the said appointment in W.P.No.9068/2023 and Dr. Venkatesh Kumar has challenged the said appointment in W.P.No. 11875/2023. By the impugned order, the Writ Petitions have been allowed and appointment of Prof.Loknath has been setaside.

¶116

The Chancellor has challenged the order in W.A.No.1199/2023 and W.A.No.1201/2023. The State has challenged the order in W.A.No.1446/2023. Prof. Loknath has challenged the order in W.A.No.1159/2023.

¶117

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶118

12

¶119

The subject matter of all these appeals is one and

¶120

the same. Hence, they are heard simultaneously and disposed of by this common order.

¶121

Heard Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for the State, Shri. Uday Holla, learned Senior Advocate for the Chancellor of Universities, Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for Prof. Loknath, and Shri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Advocate for the Writ Petitioners.

¶122

Briefly stated facts of the case are, vide notification dated 02.11.2022, the Government of Karnataka constituted a search-cum-selection committee for the selection of Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. The State Government published a list containing 71 applicants along with the details of departmental enquiries against the applicants. Prof.Loknath was at Sl.No.28 in the list. In the remarks column, it was indicated that there was an appointment dispute against him and he was not eligible as

¶123

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶124

¶125

per UGC Regulations. Prof. Loknath gave a representation to the Chancellor stating that no enquiry was pending against him. The Chancellor forwarded the representation to the State Government.

¶126

Prof.Rajashekar Biradar, whose name was at Sl.No.44 in the list also had a similar remark. He challenged the list in W.P.No. 25759/2022. This Court directed the authorities to conduct the selection proceedings according to Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000¹ .

¶127

A fresh list was prepared including the names of Prof.Loknath and Prof.Rajashekar and a panel consisting of three names viz. Prof.Loknath, Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy and Guru was constituted. The Chancellor selected Prof.Loknath as the Vice-Chancellor. Feeling aggrieved, Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy and Dr.Venkatesh Kumar have approached this Court in W.P.No. 9068 /2023 and W.P.No. 11875/2023. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ

¶128

1 ‘KSU Act’ for short

¶129

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶130

¶131

Petitions and set-aside Prof.Loknath’s appointment. Hence, these appeals.

¶132

Shri. Uday Holla, for the Chancellor of

¶133

Universities, praying to allows these appeals, mainly submitted that:

¶134

this Court in W.P.No.25759/2022 has directed the authorities to act in accordance with Section 14 of the KSU Act. This implies that a new list had to be prepared;

¶135

in furtherance of the orders of this Court, a fresh meeting was held and a new list was prepared;

¶136

UGC regulations are not applicable;

¶137

the learned Single Judge has held that candidature of Prof.Loknath must be considered. The impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set-aside.

¶138

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶139

¶140

Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, the Advocate General

¶141

also argued on similar lines.

¶142

Shri. Haranhalli, for Prof. Loknath submitted that:

¶143

selection of Prof. Loknath is in accordance with Section 14(4) of KSU Act;

¶144

appointment notification clearly states that the concurrence has been obtained from the State;

¶145

there is no ministerial interference in the selection process;

¶146

the first list had not reached finality as it was not forwarded to the Chancellor;

¶147

Prof.Loknath is an outstanding academician. He has published 63 research articles in reputed international journals and has also served as Scientist in Japan and South Korea.

¶148

Shri. Ravivarma Kumar, arguing in support of the impugned order, mainly submitted that:

¶149

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶150

¶151

Prof.Loknath was disqualified by the Search Committee;

¶152

entire selection process has been interfered with by the Minister;

¶153

the direction of this Court does not order preparation of new select list;

¶154

the State Government should not interfere with the selection proceedings;

¶155

Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations overrides the State Act;

¶156

once Selection Committee sends panel, selection has to be made from that list;

¶157

this Court in W.P. No. 25759/2022 declared Prof.Rajashekar as eligible, but did not direct redoing of the list;

¶158

UGC Regulations specifies only one panel;

¶159

Prof.Loknath lacks morals and integrity.

¶160

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023

¶161

W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶162

¶163

We have carefully heard rival contentions on both

¶164

sides and perused the records.

¶165

On the basis of the above pleadings, the points that arise for

¶166

our consideration are:

¶167

(i) Whether appointment of Prof.Loknath as Vice-Chancellor is bad in law?

¶168

(ii) Whether the impugned order requires any interference?

¶169

Re. points no. (i) and (ii):

¶170

Since both points are interlinked, they are considered together.

¶171

Undisputed facts of the case are, the Government of Karnataka constituted a search-cum-selection committee for the selection of Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. The State published a list of 71 applicants. The list contained a remarks column in which the details regarding departmental enquiries against the applicants were given. Prof.Loknath, was at Sl.No.28 in the list. In the remarks

¶172

¶173

column, it was noted that he was not eligible because there was an appointment dispute against him. Similar remarks were found in the case of Prof.Rajashekar at Sl.No.44.

¶174

Prof.Loknath gave a representation to the chancellor stating that no enquiry was pending against him. The Chancellor forwarded the representation.

¶175

Prof.Rajashekar approached this Court in

¶176

W.P.No. 25759/2022. This Court on 06.03.2023 has allowed the writ petition.

¶177

After disposal of W.P.No.25759/2022 a fresh panel consisting of three names viz. Prof.Loknath, Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy and Guru was sent to the Chancellor. Out of the three names, Prof.Loknath has been selected.

¶178

We may record that the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petitions, mainly on these grounds:

¶179

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶180

¶181

Reconsideration of all eligible names afresh on the ground that the order in W.P. 25759/2022 did not order consideration on the basis of fresh selection list;

¶182

The Chancellor deviated from the procedure prescribed under Section 14 and sought report from the Minister regarding the complaint of Prof. Lokanath and the Minister without requirement of law that panel of 3 names had already been submitted to the State Government was required to be forwarded to the Chancellor deviated from the statutory procedure. The opinion of the Minister that exclusion of Prof. Lokanath was not proper, was without jurisdiction;

¶183

Selection Committee has not given weightage to 3 factors in writing as required under the UGC Regulations, when it forwarded the 3 names and therefore there is violation of UGC Regulations.

¶184

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶185

¶186

We have perused the order in Court in

¶187

W.P. No.25759/2022. The operative portion reads thus:

¶188

“13. It is made clear that the respondent – authorities shall appoint Vice-Chancellor to the University of Mysore, Mysuru, strictly in adherence to the provisions contemplated under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and take further steps in the matter as mentioned above.”

¶189

Thus, this Court ordered the selection to be made in accordance with the KSU Act.

¶190

Section 14 of the KSU Act, reads thus:

¶191

“14. The Vice-Chancellor.-

¶192

(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University.

¶193

(2) The State Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of four persons of whom, one shall be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the University Grants Commission, one by the State Government and one by the Syndicate. The State Government shall appoint one of the members as the Chairman of the Committee. The Secretary to Government incharge of higher education or his nominee not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to

¶194

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶195

¶196

Government shall be the convenor of the Search Committee.

¶197

(3) No person connected with the affairs of the State Government, the University or any college or institution affiliated to the University shall be nominated as the member of the Search Committee. (4) The Search Committee shall submit to the State Government a panel of three persons who are eminent academicians, in the alphabetical order. The State Government shall forward the panel to the Chancellor who shall keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government, appoint one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor:

¶198

Provided that the Chancellor may with the concurrence of the State Government call for a second panel if he considers it necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a second panel which shall be final.

¶199

1 [Provided further that the Vice Chancellor of the 7 [Akkamahadevi Women University] 7 at Bijapur shall, as far as practicable be a women: Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section the First Vice Chancellor of the 7 [Akkamahadevi Women University] 7 shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified.] 1 2 [Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice Chancellor of the Tumkur University shall be appointed by the State

¶200

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶201

22

¶202

Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it]2 3 [Provided also that not withstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice-Chancellor of the Davanagere University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it.] 3 4 [Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice-Chancellors of the Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University and Ranichannamma University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it.]4 6 [Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, first Vice-Chancellors of the Bengaluru Central University and Bengaluru North University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it] 6 5 [(5)No person shall be appointed or hold office of the Vice Chancellor if he has attained the age of sixty seven years.]5

¶203

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor and the provisions of sub-section

¶204

(5) hold the office for a period of four years. He shall not be eligible for reappointment, for a second term.

¶205

(7) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of willful omission or refusal to carry out the provisions of this Act or for abuse of the powers vested in him and on the advice tendered by the State Government

¶206

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶207

23

¶208

on consideration of the report of an inquiry ordered by it under sub-section (8).

¶209

(8) For the purposes of holding an inquiry under this section the State Government shall appoint a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The inquiry authority shall hold the inquiry after giving an opportunity to make representation by the ViceChancellor and shall submit a report to the State Government on the action to be taken including penalty, if any, to be imposed, and the State Government shall on consideration of the report advise the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall act in accordance with such advice, as far as may be, within six months.

¶210

(9) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the ViceChancellor shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor and shall not be varied to his dis-advantage after his appointment as ViceChancellor. In the event of a Vice-Chancellor retiring on superannuation during his tenureship as Vice-Chancellor, his conditions of service already determined shall continue to be in vogue. All his pensionary benefits shall be kept in abeyance which shall be released after his demitting the office of the ViceChancellor.

¶211

(10) If a retired person is appointed as Vice-Chancellor, the terms and conditions of service upon his appointment as Vice-Chancellor including emoluments shall be determined by the Chancellor. The emoluments shall be reduced by the amount of pension and allowances drawn by him.

¶212

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶213

¶214

(11) If a Professor in the service of a University in the State is appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his terms and conditions of service as Professor shall not be revised to his dis-advantage during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor and he shall retain his lien in his post.”

¶215

As per Section 14 of the KSU Act, it mandates preparation of panel of eligible candidates.

¶216

The direction contained in Para 12 of the order in W.P.No. 25759/2022 against the authorities is to address the grievance of Prof.Rajashekar and act in accordance with Section 14 of the KSU Act. Pursuant to the said directions, the State Government have re-examined and found that remarks against Prof.Rajashekar and Prof.Loknath were factually incorrect. As rightly urged by Shri. Uday Holla that there is neither addition nor deletion in the list of applicants. However, based on the corrected list, a new panel of three members has been prepared. Therefore, the contention that Prof.Loknath was disqualified by the Search Committee is without any substance because, based on his

¶217

¶218

representation, the State Government have re-examined

¶219

and found that remarks were factually incorrect.

¶220

Shri.Ravivarma submitted that order in W.P.No. 25759/2022 is restricted to the petitioner therein alone. This submission is untenable because, the said order does not restrict the benefit to the petitioner therein, but on the other hand, the direction is to act in accordance with Section 14 and also to address grievance of Prof.Rajashekar, the petitioner therein. His grievance before this Court was, that in the remarks were wrongly recorded against him in the list of candidates. Similar is the grievance of Prof.Loknath, who instead of filing a writ petition has approached the Chancellor. If the grievance of Prof.Rajashekar would be addressed, pursuant to order passed by this Court, it would be just and appropriate to extend the benefit to all those applicants against whose name, some adverse remark was entered.

¶221

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶222

¶223

It was next contended by Shri. Ravivarma that

¶224

the entire selection process has been interfered by the Minister who had no jurisdiction in the selection process.

¶225

We may record that the Chancellor was not a

¶226

party in W.P. No.25759/2022. The order in W.P. No.25759/2022 directed the State to take necessary action. Therefore, minister holding portfolio has issued the notice which is in compliance with the order passed by this Court. Hence, in our view the said contention does not merit consideration.

¶227

It was vehemently argued by Shri. Ravivarma that once selection committee sends a panel, selection has to be made from it as there is no provision under the UGC Regulations to call for a second panel. This contention is also untenable for more than one reason:

¶228

¶229

● Firstly because, before the first panel could reach the Chancellor, Shri. Loknath had submitted his representation and Prof.Rajashekar had filed his writ petition² . Pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P. No.25759/2022, the remarks in the case of Prof. Rajashekar and Prof. Loknath were deleted. The resultant position is, a fresh panel had to be drawn out of the corrected list. It is not in dispute that one and the only one panel which reached the Chancellor is the panel prepared out of the corrected list;

¶230

Secondly because, Section 14(4) of the KSU Act, vests Chancellor the power to call for a second panel;

¶231

Thirdly because, it is not in dispute that the UGC Regulations have not been adopted by State of Karnataka. On behalf of the writ petitioner, reliance has been placed on Gambhirdhan K

¶232

2 W.P. No.9068/2023

¶233

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶234

28

¶235

Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors³ . The relied

¶236

portion reads thus:

¶237

“It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.”

¶238

It was urged by Ravivarma that UGC shall prevail over State Act. In reply it was argued by Shri. Holla that, in case of Kalyani Mathivannan Vs K V Keyaraj And Ors⁴ , it is held that if the UGC Act and Regulations are not adopted, they cannot be made applicable. The relevant para reads as follows:

¶239

3 (2022)5 SCC 179

¶240

4 (2015) 6 SCC 363

¶241

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶242

29

¶243

“However, the Scheme under UGC Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the teaching staffs of the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of State Legislature, unless State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein.”

¶244

We may record that in Gambhidharan’s case, it is

¶245

held as follows:

¶246

“It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving Central Financial Assistance and under the scheme and it is included in the state Universities receiving Central Financial Assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central Financial Assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure, the State Government and the SP University are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC regulations, 2010 are superseded by UGC Regulations, 2018. Xxxxxxxxxxxx. Therefore the State of Gujurat and the Universities thereunder including the SP University are bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.”

¶247

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶248

¶249

It was urged by Shri. Holla that University of

¶250

Mysore is not receiving any central finance. On this premise, he is right in his submission that the UGC regulations will not be applicable.

¶251

Another contention of Shri. Ravivarma is that, according to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, the search-cum-selection committee had to give proper weightage to these three factors in writing, along with panel of names:

¶252

the academic excellence;

¶253

exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad;

¶254

adequate expertise in academic and administrative governance.

¶255

He urged that the Selection Committee has not followed the above procedure. This contention does not

¶256

merit consideration because, as discussed above, UGC Regulations shall not be applicable. Further this Court in

¶257

¶258

W.P.No. 25759/2022 has held that the selection process shall be in accordance with the KSU Act. Hence, grievance with regard to non application of UGC Regulations is untenable.

¶259

Yet another contention was urged by Shri. Ravivarma that the State Government’s consent was not obtained as required under Section 14 of the KSU Act. The Advocate General clarified that the selection had the concurrence of the State Government. He also contended that if State Government had not consented to the appointment notification, they would have moved this court questioning the appointment. Further, notification of appointment of Prof.Loknath expressly mentions that it is with the concurrence of the State Government.

¶260

The next argument advanced by the writ petitioners was that Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon’ble Justice Rangavittalachar (Retired) has indicted Prof.Loknath.

¶261

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶262

¶263

This argument is noted only to be rejected because, based on the report, certain appointments were annulled. Prof.Loknath had challenged the said order of annulment in W.P.No. 29220/2014 and other connected matters. This Court has set- aside the annulment order and, thus it has attained finality. The resultant position is adverse finding if any by One Man Commission enquiry is inconsequential.

¶264

Shri. Ravivarma lastly urged that Prof.Loknath

¶265

lacks the morals and integrity and that there are several allegations against him. This contention does not merit consideration because Learned Single Judge in para 98 has recorded that and that finding is not under challenge:

¶266

“98. The fact that he disclosed these developments in his representation to the Chancellor and the further fact that the Search Committee, along with the Chancellor, proceeded to accept his grievance on his exclusion from the zone of consideration on these grounds, which had no bearing to his academic eligibility or expertise, is clear proof of the fact that the allegations attributed by the

¶267

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶268

¶269

petitioners on Prof. Lokanath cannot be accepted and his candidature was required to be considered.”

¶270

Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court has recorded in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And Ors. Vs Dr. B.S. Mahajan And Ors^5:

¶271

“It is needless to emphasis that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc.”

¶272

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶273

The above view has been followed in Basaviah Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh⁶ ; and Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar⁷ .

¶274

5 (1990)1 SCC 305

¶275

6 (2010) 8 SCC 372

¶276

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶277

¶278

In conclusion we may record that the Search Committee was formed according to law. The adverse remarks against Prof.Loknath and Prof.Rajashekar and others were rectified as per orders of this Court in W.P. No.25795/2022. Thereafter only one panel consisting of three members have been sent and the Chancellor has selected and appointed Prof.Loknath. The State Government has not adopted UGC Regulations. Therefore, in view of law laid down in Dalpat Abasaheb , in our considered opinion interference in appointment by exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India was uncalled for. Accordingly point no. (i) is answered in negative and point no. (ii) is answered in affirmative .

¶279

Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, these appeals merit consideration and hence, the following:

¶280

7 (2021) 8 SCC 347

¶281

W.A. No.1159/2023 C/W W.A. No.1199/2023 W.A. No.1201/2023 W.A. No.1446/2023

¶282

35 ORDER

¶283

a) Appeals are allowed ;

¶284

b) Order dated September 12, 2023 passed in W.P. No.9068/2023 and W.P. No.11875/2023 is

¶285

set-aside ;

¶286

c) W.P. No.9068/2023 and W.P. No.11875/2023 are

¶287

dismissed .

¶288

No Costs.

¶289

Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on record its deep appreciation for the research and assistance rendered by its official Research Assistants-cum-Law Clerks, Ms. Preksha R. Lalwani and Ms. Pooja Umashankar.

¶290

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶291

Sd/JUDGE

¶292

SPS

Prof. Lokanath N.K. v. Prof. Sharath Ananthamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Lokanath N.K. v. Prof. Sharath Ananthamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Sri. P.M. Chandrasekharaiah

M/S Bangalore Aggregated Industries Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Balaji Crushers Vs State of Karnataka

Fazler Rahman Vs the Bank of Baroda

Sri R Babu Reddy Vs Sri K M Ramaiah Reddy

Sri. Shivappa Dhulappa Hulkunde Vs Sri L Narasimhaiah