Dr. Savitribai Pawar Vs the University of Grants… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Dr. Savitribai Pawar Vs the University of Grants… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Main relief declined: no mandamus restraining termination or granting continuance up to 70 years. Consequential relief: if the petitioners' retirement/terminal benefits are not already settled, they shall be settled within an outer limit of 12 weeks of receipt of the order (limit running from the clarificatory order dated 09.12.2025), with an observation that the petitioners should not be driven back to the Court for release of terminal benefits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, working as guest faculty, are entitled to be continued in service up to the age of 70 years on the strength of the UGC's recommendation to the Union of India or the State Government, so as to restrain termination on superannuation. +1 more

Court's answer

Following the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633, a mere recommendation of the UGC does not confer a right on employees unless the State Government or the Central Government implements the recommendation and passes necessary Government Orders accepting it.

Ratio / Principle

The UGC recommendation on retirement of guest faculty for the age band 65 to 70 years had not been implemented even on the date of the order and still remained only a recommendation; consequently the guest-faculty petitioners derived no right to continuance up to 70 years.

Key takeaways

In that light the petitioners would not merit any consideration, and the writ petitions stood disposed of, i.e., the prayer for continuance up to the age of 70 years and restraint on termination was declined.ratio¶69
In the event the petitioners' retirement benefits were not settled as on the date of the order, the terminal benefits shall be settled within an outer limit of 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and the petitioners should not be driven again to the Court seeking release of terminal benefits.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Guest faculty — Continuance up to age 70 — UGC recommendations. Guest lecturers sought mandamus under Articles 226/227 restraining termination on attaining superannuation, claiming continuance up to 70 years on the basis of UGC recommendations to the Union/State Governments. HELD: Following Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633, a mere recommendation of the UGC confers no right on employees unless the State or Central Government implements it by passing necessary Government Orders; the UGC recommendation on retirement of guest faculty between 65 and 70 years had not come about and 'still remained a recommendation'. The petitioners, therefore, would not merit consideration and the petitions stood disposed. However, if unsettled, the terminal benefits were directed to be settled within 12 weeks of receipt of the order. By the subsequent order dated 09.12.2025, the Court clarified that the order proceeds on the admitted footing that the petitioners are guest faculty, the clarificatory order forming part and parcel of the order dated 26.11.2025, with the 12-week limit running from receipt of the later order. Paras 2–5.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105836 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 102671 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 104662 OF 2025

IN W.P.NO.105836/2025:

BETWEEN:

DR. PREMA NADAKATTI W/O. PRABHU, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. GUEST LECTURER, R/O. NEAR ICE GATE, K.C. PARK, DHARWAD – 580 001. NOT CLAIMING BENEFIT AS SENIOR CITIZEN

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B. N. MULIMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SECRETARY

THE UNIVERSITY OF GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR, MARG NEW DELHI – 110 002.

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD – 580 003.

PRINCIPAL, KARNATAK ARTS COLLEGE, DHARWAD – 580 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DIFERRED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER NATURE OF WRIT DIRECTING THE RESP NO.2 NOT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER TILL SHE ATTAINS 70 YEARS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.102671/2025:

BETWEEN:

DR. SAVITRIBAI PAWAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY WORKING AS A GUEST LECTURER IN BSS GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG.

DR. B.H.DODDARAMANANAVAR, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY WORKING AS A GUEST LECTURER IN BSS, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE HAVEI, DIST. HAVERI.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE UNIVERSITY OF GRANTS COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 530 068.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA – 580 003.

THE KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY HAVERI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR Q974-PMC KERIMATTIHALLI KARNATAKA – 581 110.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2; SRI. M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH HULKANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R4 – SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 NOT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ON GROUND THAT THEY HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION ON 30.05.2025 AND 04.01.2026 RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

IN W.P.NO.104662/2025:

BETWEEN:

CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS,OCC: GUEST LECTURER, R/O: AT AND POST MUDENUR, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPALA – 583 278.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B. N. MULIMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SECRETARY, THE UNIVERSITY OF GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR, MARG NEW DELHI – 110 002.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU.

REGISTRAR, RAICHUR UNIVERSITY, RAICHUR.

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE, SINDHANUR.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDNET/STATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER NATURE OF WRIT DIRECTING THE RESP NO.3 NOT TO TERMINATE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER ON ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANUATION ON 22/07/2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER NATURE OF WRIT DIRECTING THE RESP NO 2 TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO CONTINUITY OF TENURE UPTO 70 YEARS AND PAYMENT OF MAXIMUM HONORARIUM UP 50000/- AS PER THE REVISED GUIDELINES OF R1 VIDE ANNEXURE C AND ETC.,

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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

The petitioners in all these cases seek a singular relief that they are working as guest faculty in the respondent No.2-College and claim to be entitled to be continued upto the age of 70 years in terms of the recommendation of the UGC to the Union of India or the State Government as the case would be.

Identical petitions had been preferred before the Principal Bench, which have all been turned down following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar and others¹ , where the Apex Court holds mere recommendation of the UGC would not mean that the employees would derive a right of those recommendations unless the State Government or the Central Government as the case would be, would implement the same and pass necessary Government Orders accepting the said recommendations. That has not come about even today, qua the retirement of the guest faculties for age between 65 years to 70 years, the recommendation still remained a recommendation.

1 (2013) 8 SCC 633

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

In that light, the petitioners would not merit any consideration. Petitions stand disposed.

In the event retirement benefits of these petitioners are not settled as on today, the terminal benefits shall be settled within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

It is needless to observe that the petitioners should not be driven again to this Court seeking release of terminal benefits.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

[DR PREMA NADAKATTI W/O. PRABHU VS. SECRETARY THE UNIVERSITY OF GRANTS COMMISSION, AND OTHERS]

09.12.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

This Court had disposed of the matter in terms of its order dated 26.11.2025. Owing to certain obfuscation generated by the Court itself, the matter is posted “for being spoken to.”

The obfuscation pertains to the nature of the petitioners’ service. It is now indicated by the respondents, and admitted by the petitioners, that the petitioners are guest faculty.

In light of their status as guest faculty, the order earlier passed would not require any modification, except to clarify that the said order proceeds on the basis that the petitioners are admittedly working as guest faculty. The present order shall be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 26.11.2025.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16541 WP No. 105836 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102671 of 2025 WP No. 104662 of 2025

HC-KAR

The rest of the order shall remain intact, and the outer limit of 12 weeks shall commence from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/( M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2