Karnataka High Court
Ishwar S/O. Devendra Navalagund vs The Rani Channamma University on 25 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
WA No. 100231 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100231 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ISHWAR S/O. DEVENDRA NAVALAGUND
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. MEDAR ONI, OLD HUBLI,
NEAR NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL,
HULBI DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M 1. THE RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/BY THE REGISTRAR,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.10.29
13:21:30 +0530 VIDYASANGAM, PB, NH-4,
BELGAUM, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
VIDYASANGAM, PB,
NH-4, BELGAUM,
TQ. AND DIST. BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
WA No. 100231 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE REGISTRAR
RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
VIDYASANGAM, PB, NH-4 BELGAUM,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. MRS. MAHESHWARI S. KACHAPUR
AGE. 30 YEARS,
R/O. C/O. PRAVEENKUMAR MADANRAO KULKARNI
PLOT NO. 236, RADHAMBIKA NILAY,
NGO COLONY, JEVARGI ROAD,
GULBARGA-585103.
NOW AT RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
VIDYASANGAM PB, NH-4,
BELGAUM, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED ON 14-02-2024 IN WP NO.84375 OF 2013 ON
THE FILE OF HON BLE SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
WA No. 100231 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against learned single judge's order dated 14.02.2024 in W.P.No.84375/2023 (S- RES) dismissing the prayer of the appellant-petitioner to quash the corrigendum dated 19.04.2013 issued to original recruitment Notification dated 03.10.2012 for the recruitment of the post of teaching staff in the respondent- University.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.S.Biradar for the appellant through video conference and perused the appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioner-appellant was before this Court questioning the corrigendum Notification dated 19.04.2013 issued to the Notification dated 03.10.2012 whereunder applications were invited to fill up the teaching staff for the respondent-University. Learned counsel would submit that -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR by Corrigendum dated 03.10.2012, for the post of Assistant Professor in Criminology, the candidates with qualification of Master degree in Social Work were also permitted to apply. Learned counsel would submit that the said action of the respondent-University would amount to changing the rules of the game midway through the recruitment process. It is also the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner- appellant that the degree in social work would not be a relevant subject for the post of Assistant Professor in Criminology. It is contended that the learned single judge failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner- appellant and the learned single judge by a cryptic order without assigning any reason rejected the writ petition. Further, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that by permitting the candidates with Master degree in social work for the post of Assistant Professors in Criminology, the candidature of the petitioner-appellant with Master degree in Criminology and Forensic Science has not been considered. By permitting the candidates with qualification -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR of Master degree in social work, the chance of selection of the petitioner-appellant with qualification of Criminology and Forensic Science has reduced. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant would pray for allowing the writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the learned single judge's order refusing to interfere with the corrigendum Notification issued by the respondent-University.
5. Learned single judge on considering the contentions of the petitioner, at paragraph Nos.4, 6 and 7, has assigned reasons. Paragraph Nos.4, 6 and 7 reads as follows.
"4. The settled position of law is that once the process of recruitment is initiated, the Rules for recruitment should not be changed midway so as to either disqualify the persons who were otherwise qualified under the original notification or creating higher -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR educational qualifications so as to disqualify the original entitled applicants.
6. The second argument of the learned counsel is that the University had committed serious illegality in permitting the person with Masters Degree in social work to be appointed as Assistant Professors in criminology is completely irrational. It is submitted that a Masters Degree in Social Work would not be a relevant subject insofar as criminology and criminal justice is concerned and therefore issuance of corrigendum permitting the candidates to apply would be illegal.
7. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the post was one of a Assistant Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice and the social impact of criminals in a Society with reference to the Criminal Justice System would also be consideration and therefore be a relevant subject. It cannot therefore be said that permitting of candidates with Masters Degree in Social Work would be illegal and cannot be sustained. Consequently, I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the recruitment made and the petition is therefore dismissed."
6. A perusal of the Notification dated 03.10.2012 inviting application for the post of Assistant Professor in -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR Criminology as well as corrigendum Notification dated 19.04.2013 permitting candidates with qualification of Master degree in Social Science to apply for the post of Assistant Professor would not amount to changing the rules of the game midway through the recruitment process. It only enlarges the competition for selection and it would not alter or change the qualification. Further, whether the qualification of Masters degree in social work is relevant or whether it would be a relevant qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in Criminology is to be decided by the Recruiting Authority or Appointing Authority. Prescription of qualification or eligibility criteria is the sole discretion or privilege of the Appointing authority or Recruiting authority.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.U.Joshi Vs. Accountant General1, at paragraph No.10 has held as follows:
"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, 1 (2003)2 SCC 632 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteris and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need of necessitate, Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the learned single judge has not -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB WA No. 100231 of 2024 HC-KAR assigned any reason cannot be accepted. The learned single judge has clearly pointed out the reasons as noted above for dismissing the writ petition and we concur with the said reasons. There is no merit in the writ appeal.
9. Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17