Sri Rajashekharamurthy M S Vs the State of Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AND 3 MONTHS, WORKING AS IN CHARGE PRINCIPAL AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GEOGRAPHY, MAHARANIS ARTS COLLEGE FOR WOMEN MYSURU 570 005

¶13

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶14

RESIDING AT NO. 57, HIG GROUP -4 KHB LAYOUT, HOTTAGATTY MYSURU 570 018

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

M.S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001

¶23

THE COMMISSIONER COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, UNNATHA SHIKSHANA SOUDHA, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001

¶24

THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, VINOBHA ROAD, MYSURU 570 005

¶25

DR. VIJAYAMMA M W/O RAJESH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN PHILOSOPHY,

¶26

MAHARANIS ARTS COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,

¶27

MYSURU 570 005

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/Witness

¶30

SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AAGA FOR R1 TO R3;

¶31

SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS IN REGARDS TO APPLICATION NO.1236/2025; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 16/09/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

BENCH AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1236/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION NO.1236/2025 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-B)

¶37

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶40

This Court must prefatorily wonder whether personal reasons have affected the administration of an Educational Institution. The dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent is who should be the In-charge Principal. The cause for the present petition is the petitioner’s grievance with the order dated 16.09.2025 in Application No.1236/2025 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order, has allowed the fourth respondent's application quashing the

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Communication dated 04.04.2025 and the

¶45

consequential order of the even date directing the second and the third respondents to place the fourth respondent as the In-charge Principal of the Maharani's Arts College for Women, Mysuru [for short, ' the Institution ] until the post of Principal is filled up by regular course or until further orders under law.

¶46

Admittedly, with the recruitment to the post of the Principal of the Institution being delayed there have been multiple proceedings before the Tribunal and this Court whenever there are orders posting a person to function as In-charge Principal. The petitioner and the fourth respondent [ the contesting parties ] have been parties to some of these proceedings. The reason for the controversy and the details of the proceedings between the petitioner and the fourth respondent are summarized thus.

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

2.1 Mr. Basavaraju H.M, who was working as In-charge Principal with the Institution, has retired on 30.09.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation, and the fourth respondent, because she was the Senior most amongst the Associate Professors willing to take up this responsibility, is called upon to assume charge as the In-charge Principal and she has accordingly assumed office. There have been certain complaints against the fourth respondent resulting in an inquiry report. The complaints against her are about her failure to take the measures to ensure that the students have facilities for drinking water, clean toilets and sanitary pad dispensers and to act against some of her colleagues.

¶51

2.2 The Regional Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, Mysuru has filed a Report on 29.03.2025 stating that some students had reiterated these complaints and that even the

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

teaching staff had stated that the fourth respondent

¶56

had not taken certain actions. The fourth respondent, in response, has stated that she was constrained by the shortage of funds when the sewer pipes were damaged while demolishing an old building and that despite her constraints, she has made facilities for drinking water.

¶57

2.3 With this report being placed on record,

¶58

the Commissioner, Department of Collegiate Education, on 04.04.2025, has called upon the Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, to alter the In-charge arrangement and immediately place the next Senior Associate Professor In-charge. The Joint Director, Department of Collegiate Education, has called upon the fourth respondent to hand over the charge immediately in terms of the afore communication. However, on the same day, the next two Senior Associate Professor have communicated their unwillingness to officiate as In-charge Principal.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

2.4 The fourth respondent, in filing the application in No.1236/2025 with the Tribunal, has called in question not only the communication by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education but also the order of the Joint Director, Collegiate Education. [both dated 04.04.2025]. The petitioner has assumed the office as In-charge Principal [on 04.04.2025 itself]. The fourth respondent is unsuccessful with the Tribunal in her request for an interim order, and

¶63

she has approached this Court in W.P.No.14782/2024 calling in question the Tribunal's order. This Court has disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to the fourth respondent to request the Tribunal for early disposal.

¶64

The Tribunal has intervened to grant relief to the fourth respondent on three grounds adverting to orders of this Court. First, unless some extraordinary reason is assigned, it would not be in the interest of administration to place a Junior even

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

on an In-charge basis overlooking the Seniors; second, though there is a reference to the report against the fourth respondent, the departmental proceedings have not been started for an inquiry into such complaints; third, In-charge arrangement is a temporary arrangement and the Senior most person must be placed in the office until the regular recruitment is made and those who are next Senior after the fourth respondent have stated in writing that they are not willing to officiate as In-charge Principal.

¶69

Mr. Prithveesh M. K, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the In-charge arrangements are in terms of the Circular dated 01.01.2024 issued by the Department of Collegiate Education and that this Circular, though does not create a vested interest in the particular post, recognizes the right of a Senior Professor, Additional/Assistant Professors to be placed In-

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

charge based on Seniority when the Senior to them in writing has give up such right, and that when there are serious complaints against the Senior, it would be open to the concerned to place the next Senior as Incharge but from amongst the Institution itself.

¶74

Mr. Prithveesh M. K argues that the allegations against the fourth respondent are serious, and that the Tribunal, in the light of the terms of this Circular, could not have intervened only because the departmental proceedings are not started. However, the learned counsel does not dispute the efficacy of the exposition by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8908/2024 as regards the significance of seniority while placing an officer In-charge lest it be that such officer is made to suffer “ salt being rubbed into the injury” .

¶75

Mr. A. Nagarajappa, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, without contesting the assertion that the Tribunal could not have interfered

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

only because the disciplinary proceedings are not started, submits that this Court must consider that the allegations against the fourth respondent are not serious as are contemplated under the Circular dated 01.01.2024. The learned counsel relies upon the Circular dated 03.10.2019 to submit that the inquiry report, which forms the basis for replacement of the fourth respondent from the In-charge Principal arrangement, is based on an anonymous complaint/s, and that the Circular stipulates that the officers must be protected from harassment. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner's locus is seriously impaired because on 07.03.2025, he has written to the Principal of the Institution stating that he must be continued in the same post for the reasons stated.

¶80

Mr. Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional

¶81

Advocate General, does not dispute the significance of the Seniority and nor does the learned Additional

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Advocate General dispute the canvass that the Tribunal could not have intervened to restore the Incharge arrangement in favour of the fourth respondent merely because departmental proceedings are not started [or contemplated]. However, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that this Court must consider the current arrangement that has been brought about during the pendency of the petition because of the continued dispute amongst the Seniors [ the petitioner and the fourth respondent ] and the unwillingness of the other Seniors to take up the responsibility of officiating as In-charge Principal until the Principal directly recruited assumes charge.

¶86

Mr. Reuben Jacob emphasizes [a] that the

¶87

Commissioner, Collegiate Education, with the continued litigation beginning from the time Mr. Basavaraju H. M is placed In-charge and taking a cue from this Court's observation in these

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

proceedings [by another Bench] about the need for placing a Senior Professor from the District/ State level in charge, has firstly called upon Dr. Jayarupa P, a Senior Professor within the District to assume charge; [b] that because this professor had certain personal difficulties, the Commissioner has issued the next order dated 09.10.2025 appointing the next Senior Professor within the District to assume the charge, and [c] that this Senior Professor has also assumed charge from the petitioner. In elaboration, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that because there would be difficulties in appointing the Senior most at the State level as it would involve inter-district movement, the Senior most within the District is now placed In-charge.

¶92

In reply, both Mr. Prithveesh M.K. and Mr. A. Nagarajappa submit that the Circular dated 01.01.2024 only contemplates placing the Senior Professor within the Institution as In-charge Principal

¶93

13 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

and this is also in consonance with Rule 68 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules¹ , and as such, this Court may not allow the arrangement in terms of the present order dated 09.10.2025 to continue. The question presented for consideration in the factual matrix and the rival submissions is:

¶97

Whether there is any reason for interference with the Tribunal's decision to quash the Communication/Order dated 04.04.2025, and whether this Court, notwithstanding the finding on the question, must allow the person with the present arrangement in terms of the order dated 09.10.2025 to continue as In-charge Principal .

¶98

The standout from the submissions are

¶99

that [a] the Seniority will have to be duly considered even for In-charge placement, and [b] if there are

¶100

1 This Rule elaborates the terms upon which a charge allowance could be made, include the rate of Charge Allowance.

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

serious allegations, the person facing those allegations need not be placed or continued in the Incharge arrangement only because of such seniority. The next standout is that the fourth respondent was placed In-charge only because she was the senior most willing to officiate as In-charge Principal and that no departmental proceedings were started. The Tribunal's interference with the Commissioner’s Communication dated 04.04.2025 and the Joint Commissioner’s decision also of the even date to replace the fourth respondent as In-charge Principal is examined in the light of the material circumstances and the terms of the Circular dated 01.01.2024.

¶105

The allegations against the fourth

¶106

respondent, who has assumed office as In-charge Principal on 30.09.2024, substantially is that she had failed to ensure that there are proper toilet and drinking facilities to the students and that she had failed to make necessary arrangements despite the

¶107

15 -

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

students and the teaching faculty bringing it to her notice. The other allegation against the fourth respondent is that the lecturers who are allegedly close to her were not holding classes regularly, but she has not acted against them. The fourth respondent's response [ which is also part of the report ] is that she was handicapped by the lack of funds and difficulties presented with damage to the pipes and facilities when bringing down an old building within the premises.

¶111

The other material circumstances are: [i] the first round of litigation [ when Sri. Basavaraju was placed In-charge ], [ii] the petitioner on 07.03.2025 has expressed his willingness to take up the In-charge responsibility, [iii] the fourth respondent’s tenure [ between the date she has taken charge and the date she is called upon to handover the charge ], and [iv] the entire course of action is on 04.04.2025, and these are the Commissioner’s

¶112

16 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

communication, the Joint Commissioner’s decision and

¶116

the unwillingness of the other seniors. This Court cannot but observe that the circumstances may have been because of the dispute amongst the teachers, and indubitably, this would not augur well for the administration of the Institution, which must only be for the students' benefit.

¶117

This Court is of the view that the Tribunal

¶118

should also have considered the terms of the Circular dated 01.01.2024. This Circular reads as under:

¶119

"ಉ�ೆ�ೕ�ತ ಸೂvÉÆÛÃ�ೆಯ�� ಸೂ��ರುವ �ಾಗ�ಸೂ�ಗಳನು� ಮುಂದುವ�ೆಸು�ಾ�, ಸ�ಾ�� ಪ!ಥಮ ದ#ೆ� �ಾ�ೇಜುಗಳ�� ¥Àæ%ಾರ &ಾ!ಂಶು&ಾಲ�ಾ) ಕತ�ವ+ ,ವ�-ಸು.�ರುವ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರು, ಸಹ/ಸ1ಾಯಕ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರುಗಳ2 ,ವೃ., ವ4ಾ�ವ5ೆ, ಇ�ಾ+7 ಸಂದಭ�ದ�� &ಾ!ಂಶು&ಾಲರ ಪ!%ಾರ7ಂದ 9ಡುಗ;ೆ 1ೊಂದು<ಾಗ &ಾ!ಂಶು&ಾಲರ ಪ!%ಾರವನು� =ೇ<ಾ #ೇಷ?�ೆಯ�� -�ಯ�ಾದ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರು, ಸಹ/ಸ1ಾಯಕ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕ�4ೆ ಕ;ಾ@ಯ<ಾ) ವ-ಸಲು ಸೂ��Aೆ. ಒಂದು <ೇCೆ ಸದ�ಯವರು &ಾ!ಂಶು&ಾಲರ ¥Àæ%ಾರ ವ-��ೊಳDಲು ,�ಾಕ��ದ�� ಅವ�ಂದ ��ತ<ಾ) ,�ಾಕರ5ೆ ��ತ ರೂಪದ�� ಪ;ೆದು ನಂತರದ =ೇ<ಾ

¶120

17 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

#ೇಷ?�ೆಯ�� -�ಯ�ಾದ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರು, ಸಹ/ಸ1ಾಯಕ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕ�4ೆ ವ-ಸಲು ಸೂ��Aೆ

¶124

Fೕ�ನ ಪ!ಕರಣಗಳನು� 1ೊರತುಪH� =ೇ<ಾ #ೇಷ?�ೆ 1ೊಂ7ರುವ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರು, ಸಹ/ಸ1ಾಯಕ &ಾ!/ಾ+ಪಕರು ಇವರ IರುದJ ಗುರುತರ ದೂರು, ಆಡLತವನು� ಸಮಪ�ಕ<ಾ) ನ;ೆಸಲು ಸಮಥ��ಾ)ಲ�<ೆಂದು ಕಂಡುಬಂದ�� 1ಾಗೂ ಅಂತಹ ಸಂದಭ�ದ�� ೇಂದ! ಕNೇ�Oಂದ�ೆ ¥Àæ%ಾರ ವ-��ೊಳ2Dವ ಆAೇಶ ,ೕಡ�ಾಗುವPದು. ಇಂತಹ ¥Àæಕರಣದ�� ಸದ� Qೋಧಕರು ¥Àæ%ಾರ ವ-��ೊಡ7ದS�� ಅವರ IರುದJ ,ಯ�ಾನು=ಾರ ಕ!ಮ�ೈ4ೊಳDಲು �ೇಂದ! ಕNೇ�4ೆ ಪ!=ಾ�ವUೆ ಸ��ಸಲು ಸೂ��zÉ."

¶125

The first paragraph reads that whenever the office of the Principal falls vacant, the Senior most amongst the Associate/Assistant Professors must be assigned with the In-charge duties and if the Senior most Associate/Assistant Professors is not willing to, as conveyed in writing, the next Senior most must be placed in charge. This will not be relevant for the present purposes because the circumstances peculiar to the case would squarely be covered under the second paragraph. This paragraph

¶126

18 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

reads that when there is a complaint against the Associate/Assistant Professors or when it can be opined that the Senior cannot effectively oversee the administrative affairs, the Central Office can issue an order placing an Associate/Assistant Professor in charge .

¶130

This Court must observe that an Assistant/Associate Professor who is placed as the Incharge Principal can be replaced not just because of serious complaints but also when this professor cannot effectively administer the Institution’s affairs. The Tribunal should have considered this as well and decided on the efficacy of the fourth respondent’s continuance as such with the precedence to the student’s interests. Crucially, the language of this paragraph does not show that the State Government was particular that the alternative arrangement, in the event of a serious complaint or for administrative

¶131

19 -

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

reason must be from amongst the Senior

¶135

Associate/Assistant Professors in the Institution.

¶136

In the absence of express stipulation, this Court cannot infer such a restriction on the Commissioner’s powers to place another In-charge especially when the second paragraph further reads that upon such In-charge arrangement being made if the charge is not made over to the concerned, the recommendations will have to be made for actions to be started. As such, this Court is not persuaded to opine that the Commissioner is without jurisdiction to nominate the Senior most within the District to be the In-charge Principal .

¶137

In the circumstances already discussed

¶138

and because the person now placed In-charge is indisputably Senior to both the petitioner and the fourth respondent, this Court is of the view that the outcome in this writ petition must turn in favour of

¶139

20 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:42267-DB WP No. 28706 of 2025

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

the continuation of the interim arrangement in terms

¶143

of the order dated 09.10.2025 calling upon the first respondent to ensure that the direct recruitment process is concluded expeditiously. In the light of the afore:

¶144

ORDER

¶145

The petition stands disposed of

¶146

holding that unless there is an order otherwise as may be permissible in law, the Senior Professor, who is called upon to assume the office of the In-charge Principal of the Institution vide Order dated 09.10.2025, shall continue.

¶147

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶148

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶149

RB, AN/-

Sri Rajashekharamurthy M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajashekharamurthy M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srinivasa N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B P Hanumatha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Lokyukta Vs Sri Ahmed Khaleel

The Registrar Vs Sri a Venkateshappa

Smt H J Bhavya Sahukara Vs the State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Vs Sri Denesh Basavaraju