Dr. Devarajan Thangadurai Vs the Karnataka Univeristy

DR. DEVARAJAN THANGADURAI, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR, P.G. DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN BOTANY, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD- 580003, R/O. 302, SAI PRASAD APARTMENT, 8^TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, DHARWAD -580007.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, AND SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE KARNATAKA UNIVERISTY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD -580003, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMIN).

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD- 580003.

¶16

THE DEAN, FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD- 580003.

¶17

THE CHAIRMAN, P.G. DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN BOTONY, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD- 580003.

¶18

DR. S.N. AGADI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶21

P.G. DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN BOTONY, KARNATAKA UNIVERSIY, DHARWAD- 580003.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. SHUBHENDU A. AKALAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KVV/SYNDICATE/MUKAYASTRU/SASYASHASTRA/2023-24/1992 DATED. 05.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO APPOINTMENT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED. 01.01.2024 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND REPRESENTATION DATED. 02.01.2024 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDERS WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking quashment of an order dated 05.01.2024, by which the 5^th respondent is appointed as a Chairman of the Department of Botany at the Karnataka University and has sought certain consequential directions by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to appoint him as the Chairman.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

Sri.Suhas Hosamani & Sri.Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra A.Mali for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.Shubendu A. Akalawadi for respondent No.5.

¶32

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner, while working as an Associate Professor, is promoted to the cadre of Professor on 23.03.2023, with retrospective effect from 28.05.2021. The petitioner is wanting to become the Chairman of the Department of Studies (Botany) in the University. It is his contention that in the Department of the University, for Headship of the Department of Studies, every University follows an Ordinance, and the notification issued pursuant to the Ordinance. In terms of the said notification, in all

¶34

Departments established and maintained by the University, every Professor and Associate Professor with three years service and requisite API score, shall by rotation, according to seniority, act as a Chairman of the Department for a period of two years.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶36

The 5^th respondent, who is in the cadre of Professor, long before the petitioner becoming Professor, with effect from 2014, is appointed as a Chairman by way of rotation in terms of the notification. His appointment is now challenged on the ground that by rotation, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Chairman and not the person who is already held the post of Chairman on rotation earlier to the entry of the petitioner to the cadre of Professor.

¶37

The learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court to project what would be rotation.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the University would submit that the petitioner comes in mid stream as the Professor by way of promotion albeit with retrospective effect that would not mean that the petitioner as on the date was holding the post of Professor. Therefore at best, the learned counsel would submit that if the petitioner would meet every other

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶40

eligibility, his name would be considered for Chairperson or Headship of the Department of Botany once the terms of the 5^th respondent gets over.

¶41

The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent

¶42

would toe the lines of the learned counsel for the University to contend that the notification clearly indicates that the rotation is by seniority and if it is by seniority, the 5^th respondent is far senior to the petitioner. Therefore no fault can be found with the appointment of the 5^th respondent, is the submission of the counsel.

¶43

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties.

¶44

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in an narrow compass. The 5^th respondent is a Professor in the University in the Department of Botany right from 2014. The petitioner who was in the cadre of Associate Professor is promoted to the cadre of Professor in the year 2023 i.e. 23.03.2023 with retrospective effect from 15.11.2022. The period of the incumbent, who was

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶46

holding the post of Chairman, was to come to an end on 01.01.2024, at which point in time it was found that the 5^th respondent was far senior to the petitioner and therefore, on rotation the 5^th respondent is appointed as the Chairman. The notification issued by the University to follow such rotation reads as follows:

¶47

“Ref.No.: KU-Syndicate/Dept/Chair/2016-17/157 Date:01.06.2016

¶48

NOTIFICATION

¶49

Sub:- Determine the eligibility of Associate Professor for Chairmanship in P.G. Departments of K.U. Dharwad.

¶50

Ref:- 1) Committee Proceedings dated: 17.03.2016. 2) Syndicate resolution No.12 dated: 23.03.2016 3) Vice-Chancellor order dated: 30.04.2016.

¶51

The Syndicate at its meeting held on 23.03.2016 (vide Res No.12) has amended the existing Ordinance vide Resolution No.20 dated: 30.06.1995 relating to the Chairmanship of the Dept. of Studies to read as under.

¶52

Amended Ordinance:

¶53

(1) In respect of the Departments established and maintained by the University, every Professor and Associate Professor with 3 years of service and requisite API scores required to be eligible for the post of Professor (As per UGC Regulations from time-time) shall by rotation according to seniority, act as Chairperson of the department for a period of 2 years.

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶55

(2) When a question arises regarding the appointment of Associate Professor as Chairperson of the department his/her API score shall be evaluated by the scrutiny committee as done in the case of recruitment/Promotions.

¶56

(3) In any Department, if there are no Professors every Associate Professor shall by rotation according to Seniority shall act as the Chairperson of the Department for a period of 2 years irrespective of his/her API Scores.

¶57

The Ordinance comes in to force with effect from 01.06.2016.

¶58

Accordingly the present head of the departments of studies will continue to be head of the respective departments for a remaining period of their tenure.

¶59

Sd/REGISTRAR”

¶60

In terms of amended Ordinance Clause (1), the

¶61

rotation must be amongst the Professors and if the Professors are not available, Associate Professors with three years of service, and all other requisites by rotation for a period of two years.

¶62

As observed hereinabove, the petitioner comes in as a Professor only on 23.03.2023 albeit with retrospective effect but integrant to the cadre of Professor substantially for the subject purpose on 23.03.2023. In

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶64

that light, the petitioner cannot point a finger at the 5^th respondent, who is far senior to him for having being appointed as a Chairman. Submission of the counsel for the University would merit acceptance that the turn of the petitioner would come on 05.01.2026, at the time when the tenure of the 5^th respondent would come to an end.

¶65

It is made clear at that point in time, the notification shall be given effect to as also the interpretation of the Allahabad High Court as to what is rotation. The Allahabad High Court has held that rotation would not be repeating only those persons who have been already appointed but eligible persons who have not been appointed as Chairperson, should be given opportunity to work. There can be no qualm about the principles so laid down by the Allahabad High Court. Therefore, the University, shall at the time of appointment of the Chairperson, in the next ensuing opportunity, shall consider the case of the petitioner as well in terms of the notification dated 01.06.2016.

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1668 WP No. 100229 of 2024

¶67