Disposed

Mr Jai Madegowda v. the Vice Chancellor

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024WP/7837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Senior Assistant from service. The Court reserved liberty to utilize the internal appellate remedy before the University Syndicate and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of any appeal within three months. The Court refused to make observations on non-reinstatement pending the internal appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to file internal appeal; Appellate Authority directed to decide appeal within 3 months.

Mr Jai Madegowda Vs the Vice Chancellor — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7837 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR JAI MADEGOWDA S/O MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O NO 26, SANTHRUPTI 14TH A CROSS 80 FEET ROAD, GIRINAAGAR 2ND PHASE BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE 560085

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H.., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE VICE CHANCELLOR

¶14

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 14^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560041

¶16

THE REGISTRAR

¶17

RAGIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 14^TH T BLOCK, JAYANGAR BANGALORE 560041

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO. RJU/EST/79/2015-16 DATED 07/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AND PROVIDE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who was working as a Senior Assistant with the respondents, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 [ Annexure-A ], and the first respondent by this order has dismissed the petitioner from service on the condition that the dismissal will ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.

¶26

This Court, on 14.03.2024, has granted interim order staying the operation of Annexure-A recording the petitioner's case that the impugned order is notwithstanding the petitioner being exonerated after two inquiries. According to the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶29

petitioner, he had to be reinstated pursuant to this interim order, but he is not and therefore, he has initiated contempt proceedings which stands disposed of by the Division Bench observing that the petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate directions before this Court.

¶30

Sri. Udaya Holla, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents, while emphasizing that application [I.A.No.2/2024] for vacating is filed because of the liberty reserved, has canvassed that the respondents' Regulations contemplate an appeal against impugned order with the University's Syndicate, but the petitioner has rushed to this Court without availing such remedy. This Court, given the expanse of jurisdiction before the Appellate Authority and the narrower scope of judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has extended an opportunity to Sri. H. Sunil Kumar, the learned

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶33

counsel for the petitioner, to respond to this objection.

¶34

Sri. H. Sunil Kumar submits on

¶35

instructions, that the petitioner will avail appellate remedy with the University's Syndicate, but this Court must direct expeditious disposal of the appeal. Sri. H. Sunil Kumar further makes a request with this Court for observation as regards the respondents' purported failure to reinstate the petitioner consequent to the impugned order.

¶36

Sri. Udaya Holla in rejoinder, submits that

¶37

if the petitioner avails the appellate remedy, the respondents are bound to consider them independent of the present proceedings, and this Court could also

¶38

direct expeditious disposal of the appeal, if filed within a reasonable period of time. As regards the respondents' alleged failure to reinstate the petitioner, Sri. Udaya Holla submits that this Court's order dated 14.03.2024 is an ex parte order and it

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶41

would be within the respondents' rights to file an application and therefore, there cannot be any allegations of deliberate disobedience.

¶42

It is obvious from the afore submissions

¶43

that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appellate remedy in terms of the respondents' Regulations in that regard. As regards the deliberate disobedience, it emerges that this Court's interim order is an ex parte order, which means that it is even before an opportunity is extended to the respondents, who have now filed an application for vacating in terms of the liberty that is reserved by this Court while granting interim order. These circumstances do not render themselves to an easy opinion of deliberate disobedience. As such, no observation is made in this regard. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a) The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22696 WP No. 7837 of 2024

¶47

appellate remedy under the respondents' Regulations within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶48

b) If the petitioner so avails his remedy, the Appellate Authority, given the circumstances of the case, is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three [3] months.

¶49

c) It is needless to observe that this Court has not considered the merits of the rival submissions, and it is open in all its ambit to consider the appellate order.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

Mr Jai Madegowda v. the Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jai Madegowda v. the Vice Chancellor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum M Sujatha Vs the Director (a & Hr)

M Mujibulla Vs Union of India

Dr G M Alexander Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S B Hoovamma W/O Nanjesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Geetha B a Haveri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. N.C. Cheluvaiah Vs the State of Karnataka