Allowed

Dr Banashankari J L v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/49437/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench allowed a writ petition filed by an Assistant Professor seeking to quash an order regarding her appointment and a subsequent show-cause notice. The Court relied on a coordinate bench judgment holding that Statutes with Chancellor’s assent validly permit the absorption of Guest Faculties, leading to the quashing of the challenge notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned show-cause notice dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure-L) is quashed.

Dr Banashankari J L Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.49437 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR.BANASHANKARI J L D/O LEELARAJU J C AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A NO.5/2, MADHU CHAYE 1^ST MAIN, SHAKTHINAGAR NEAR TRIVENI CIRCLE MYSORE-570 019

¶9

WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSURU- 570 006

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH (BY SRI.SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE) COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION 6^TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶17

MYSURU – 570 006

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶19

THE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSURU – 570 006 BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶20

THE VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSURU - 570 006

¶21

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHA GANGOTHRI MYSURU – 570 006

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/DIRECTIONS DATED 03.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND COMMUNICATION TO THE R-4 VIDE LETTER DATED 03.11.2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief;

¶29

“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ/directions/order quashing the order/directions dated 03.11.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent and communicated to the 4^th respondent vide letter dated 03.11.2015 bearing No.D.O.No.GS 13 KOM 2014(P-1) produced at Annexure-H, in so far as it relates to the appointment of the petitioner herein;

¶30

b. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ/directions/order quashing the show cause notice dated 06.02.2019 issued to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent bearing No.Ka Ra Mu Vi/Aa Vi/Sibbandi-1/587/2017-18/10 produced at Annexure-L.

¶31

c. Pass such other order/s that this Hon’ble Court deem to fit in the facts and circumstances of this case by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶34

has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36509/2019 in respect of the same subject matter.

¶35

Referring to the operative portion, he has

¶36

brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has upheld that Statues framed by the Board of Management, having been assented by the Chancellor in 2013 and being placed before the Legislative Assembly, the Statues under which the Lecturers, who were appointed as Guest Faculty

¶37

on temporary basis were absorbed in terms of the Statues, is held to be legal, valid and subsisting. Resultantly, the show-cause notice issued by the University on the premise that the absorption of the petitioners are irregular/illegal cannot be sustained and the same is quashed by this Court.

¶38

Learned AGA, however, contends that the

¶39

judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶42

only relates to challenge to the show-cause notice and there was no challenge to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer/One Man Fact Finding Committee. He would contend that the enquiry report is not confined only to the absorption made under the Statutes but some other aspects were also dealt and report is submitted and therefore, he would object and seriously contest that Annexure-A cannot be quashed.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶44

No.2 has argued in the same vain and has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned AGA.

¶45

Having perused prayer sought in the captioned writ petition and the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in respect of the same subject matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned show-cause notice as per Annexure-L is liable to be quashed.

¶46

The enquiry report insofar as it relates to the

¶47

issue relating to absorption of Guest Faculties in terms of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶50

Statues has to go. This Court deems it fit to refer relevant findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.36509/2019. Para Nos.61 to 64 would be relevant and the same is extracted as follows;

¶51

“61. In the light of the discussion made above, it is clear that 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 legal, valid and subsisting.

¶52

62. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any move to discharge the petitioners. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed.

¶53

63. It is declared that the Statues 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 were, therefore, valid and subsisting.

¶54

64. Resultantly, the show-cause notices issued by the University on the premise that the

¶55

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶56

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

¶57

On reading the above said culled out

¶58

paragraphs, it is clearly evident that the Statues framed by the respondents – Board of Management relating to absorption of Guest Faculties is upheld. The show cause notice issued by the University on the premise that the absorption of the petitioners were found to be illegal is quashed by this Court. Notably, the enquiry report is not placed on record. It is clarified that subsequent to the judgment rendered by this Court, the validity of the Statutes, which is subject matter of Annexure – H, no longer survives for consideration in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.36509/2019.

¶59

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶60

proceeds to pass the following;

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:11016 WP No. 49437 of 2019

¶65

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.11.2015 issued by respondent No.3 and communication sent to respondent No.4 vide letter dated 03.11.2015

¶66

(iii) The impugned show cause notice dated 06.02.2019 issued by respondent No.2 bearing No.KaRaMuvi/Aa Vi/Sibbandi1/587/2017-18/10 as per Annexure-L is hereby quashed.

¶67

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

NBM

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Dr Banashankari J L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Banashankari J L v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Veerabhadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaladurgaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tamil Selvi Vs Canara Bank

Mr K M Lingaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sreeramu v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Basavaraju B C Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha