Allowed¶63

Dr. R K Somashekhar v. Registrar Bangalore University

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025WP/12614/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Bangalore University; Syndicate resolution 06.03.2018; Annexure-K; 140th Syndicate proceedings; Item No.26; seniority re-fixation; Senior Scale 31.01.1986; Reader 31.01.1994; Mysore University service; Dean of Science; retirement benefits reimbursement; Section 53 Karnataka State University Act, 2000; Articles 226 & 227 Constitution of India; writ of mandamus; Annexures-L and M; four-week compliance direction; Ashok S. Kinagi J.; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondent No.1 directed to consider Annexures-L and M together with Annexure-K and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of copy of the order; pending applications disposed of. ¶63

Dr. R K Somashekhar Vs Registrar Bangalore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 University is bound to implement the Syndicate resolution dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure-K, 140th proceedings) and reimburse the monetary and other benefits due to the petitioner, who ought to have retired as Dean of Science and a member of the Syndicate.

¶30

Court's answer

In view of respondent No.1's submission (through its counsel) that it would consider the petitioner's representations and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, the court allowed the writ petition.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1 is directed to consider Annexures-L and M along with Annexure-K and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Ashok S. Kinagi, J.), WP No. 12614 of 2020 (S-RES), order dated 30.10.2025. A retired Professor (Department of Botany) sought mandamus to compel the Registrar, Bangalore University to implement the Syndicate resolution dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure-K, 140th proceedings, Item No.26) re-fixing his seniority — his Mysore University service (30.01.1980-10.10.1983) having been recognised and Senior Scale given from 31.01.1986 and Readership from 31.01.1994 — and to reimburse retirement benefits as Dean of Science and Syndicate member. The University resisted, contending the resolution was passed without the Section 53 procedure of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000; the resolution was, however, never recalled in subsequent Syndicate meetings. On the University's undertaking to consider the representations, the court allowed the petition and directed consideration of Annexures-K, L and M and an appropriate order in accordance with law within four weeks. Filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 12614 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DR. R K SOMASHEKHAR RETIRED PROFESSOR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE G KALEGOWDA R/O NO.1492, 7^TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶12

(BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

REGISTRAR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶20

B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶23

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORD; DIRECT THE R-1 TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION DATED 06.03.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE SYNDICATE OF R-1 UNIVERSITY IN ITS 140^TH PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO REIMBURSE ALL THE BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FOR WHICH HE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED, SINCE HE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RETIRED AS DEAN OF SCIENCE AND ALSO A MEMBER OF SYNDICATE AT R-1 UNIVERSITY.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to implement the resolution dated 06.03.2018 as per Annexure-K passed by the Syndicate of the first respondent University in its 140^th proceedings and further direct the first respondent to reimburse all the benefits including monetary and other benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner is legally entitled, since he ought to have been retired as Dean of Science and also a member of Syndicate at first respondent University.

¶31

The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶32

i) The petitioner joined first Respondent University as a faculty member in the Department of Botany on 10.10.1983. Prior to that appointment in first

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Respondent University, he has worked as a Lecturer in Botany at Mysore University from 30.01.1980 till 10.10.1983. Pursuant to the clarification of the second Respondent Government, petitioner was placed in the Senior Scale, with effect from 31.01.1986 instead of 10.10.1988. On 31.01.1994, the petitioner was promoted as Reader in first Respondent University. On 12.07.2007, 18 lecturers with Ph.D. holding, and 9 years of service, are promoted as a Readers without insisting 5 years of service on Senior Scale. The petitioner, having noticed the fact of promotion, requested the Additional Chief Secretary by way of objections with relevant documents on 28.01.2016 to consider the petitioner for promotion. The second Respondent/ Government directed the first Respondent/ University to consider the petitioner for re-fixation, which was not complied, and then the second RespondentGovernment issued another direction on 07.12.2016. Pursuant to the direction issued by the second Respondent Government, the Syndicate of the first Respondent

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

University resolved at Item No.26 in its 132^nd proceedings considered to re-fix the seniority list of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a set of representations on 30.07.2018 and on 23.06.2020 to implement the 140th proceedings of the resolution and the University has not implemented the syndicate resolution till today. Hence, this writ petition.

¶39

ii) The first Respondent University filed a statement of objections contending that while passing a resolution in 140^th proceedings, the University did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000. Hence, the University did not implement the said resolution. Hence, on this ground, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶40

iii) The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections filed by the University contending that the petitioner made several requests to the Board of Appointment and University as they were not ready to correct their mistake, ultimately he was compelled to

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

approach the Government, by bringing it to the notice of the fact that the Respondent University has not considered the service of the petitioner with the effect on 30.01.1980 to 10.10.1983 and they also did not consider the resolution passed by the Syndicate of Respondent University in its meeting held on 03.02.2017 at Item No. 26 vide Annexure-J. Hence, the Respondent University is under obligation to implement the resolution passed in its meeting. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent University.

¶45

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

¶46

when the Syndicate has passed the Resolution, they are under the obligation to implement the said resolution. He also submits that the said resolution was passed on 06.03.2018 vide Annexure-K, if the said resolution was passed without following the due procedure, till date, the

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Respondent University has not recalled the said resolution. He also submits that the State Government has directed the University to comply with the said resolution. Hence, on this ground, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶50

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondentUniversity submits that if reasonable time is granted to the respondent, the respondent will consider Annexure-K and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶51

Perused the records and considered the

¶52

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as faculty member in the Department of Botany on 10.10.1983 and prior to that from 30.01.1980 till 10.10.1983 he worked in the Mysore University. The petitioner was placed in the Senior Scale with effect from 31.01.1986 instead of 10.10.1988. The petitioner was promoted as Reader in respondent No.1-University on

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

31.01.1994. 18 lecturers with PHD holding, and 9 years of service, are promoted as Readers without insisting 5 years of service on Senior Scale. The petitioner having noticed the fact of promotion, requested the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka by way of objection with relevant documents to consider the petitioner for promotion. Respondent No.2 directed respondent No.1University to consider the petitioner for re-fixation, which was not complied, and then respondent No.2 issued another direction on 07.12.2016. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Government, the Syndicate of respondent No.1 resolved at Item No.26 of its 132^nd proceedings held on 03.02.2017 to re-fix the Seniority list of the petitioner. Respondent No.1-University in its 140^th Syndicate proceedings at Item No.26 re-fixed the Seniority list on 06.03.2018. The petitioner requested respondent No.1 to implement 140^th proceedings of the resolution and submitted a set of representations on 30.07.2018 and 23.06.2020. The respondents did not consider the

¶57

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

resolution dated 06.03.2018 to implement the same. When a specific query was put to the learned counsel for respondent No.1 whether the resolution dated 06.03.2018 was recalled?, he fairly submits that the said resolution is not recalled in the subsequent Syndicate meetings. He submits that respondent No.1-University will consider representations and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶60

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1University would consider the representations, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶61

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶64

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider Annexures-L and M along with Annexure-K and pass appropriate order in accordance with

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:44094 WP No. 12614 of 2020

¶66

10 -

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶69

iii. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

¶70

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶71

DH/SSB

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Non-implementation by respondent No.1 University (Registrar, Bangalore University) of the Syndicate resolution dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure-K, 140th proceedings, Item No.26) re-fixing the petitioner's seniority list.¶38
Bangalore University (first respondent)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined respondent No.1 University as a faculty member in the Department of Botany on 10.10.1983.¶32
Prior proceeding
Before that, the petitioner worked as a Lecturer in Botany at Mysore University from 30.01.1980 till 10.10.1983.¶35
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to clarification of the second respondent Government, petitioner was placed in the Senior Scale with effect from 31.01.1986 instead of 10.10.1988.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was promoted as Reader in respondent No.1 University on 31.01.1994.¶35
Prior proceeding
On 12.07.2007, 18 lecturers with Ph.D. holding and 9 years of service were promoted as Readers without insisting on 5 years of service on Senior Scale; petitioner noticed this and sought similar consideration.¶35
Prior proceeding
By objections with relevant documents dated 28.01.2016, petitioner requested the Additional Chief Secretary to consider him for promotion.¶35
Prior proceeding
Second respondent Government directed first respondent University to consider petitioner for re-fixation; not complied; a further direction was issued on 07.12.2016.¶35
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Government direction, the Syndicate of respondent No.1 resolved at Item No.26 of its 132nd proceedings held on 03.02.2017 to re-fix the petitioner's seniority list (Annexure-J).¶56
Prior proceeding
In its 140th Syndicate proceedings at Item No.26, respondent No.1 University re-fixed the petitioner's seniority list on 06.03.2018 (Annexure-K).¶56
Prior proceeding
Petitioner requested implementation of the 140th proceedings resolution and submitted representations on 30.07.2018 and 23.06.2020; the University did not implement the resolution.¶56
Prior proceeding
First respondent filed a statement of objections contending that in passing the 140th-proceedings resolution it did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000, and hence did not implement it; prayed for dismissal.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a rejoinder contending the University failed to credit his 30.01.1980-10.10.1983 service and failed to consider the Syndicate resolution of 03.02.2017 (Item No.26, Annexure-J), and that the University is obliged to implement its own resolution.¶43

Dr. R K Somashekhar v. Registrar Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. R K Somashekhar v. Registrar Bangalore University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanganna Irappa Sulibhavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.M.Naik Vs the Secretary

Sri Venkataramana Alias Thimmappa Vs Smt Chaluvamma

Chandraama Doddamani @ Chandrappa Vs the Managing Director

Pattu Naik Vs Krishnamurthy

Smt G Nalini Vs Sharath Chandra