Karnataka High Court
Dr C S Ananda vs Dr H Vishwanath on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1621 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. C.S. ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MYSORE- 570 006
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P S RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL,
SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR H VISHWANATH
Digitally signed by SON OF SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
MADHUSHREE H AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Location: High REGISTRAR EVALUATION
Court of Karnataka
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560001
3. THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND THE
CHANCELLOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERISTY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA STAE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(NOC)
SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2;
SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 19.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE,
IN WP No. 14899/2025 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.6924/2022 filed by respondent No.4 herein.
2. For the convenience, parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner is master's in Kannada Literature and he is a Ph.D. holder in Kannada. Several books published are to his credits and he is also said to be recipient of State and National awards. The petitioner was appointed as Principal of S.G. Ramappa P.U. College, Gandhinagar, Devanagere. Thereafter, he was promoted as Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme by an order dated 19.04.2025. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar Evaluation in the Karnataka State Open University by the Chancellor, vide the order dated 02.03.2024.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. The petitioner has been repatriated to his post of Professor, by order dated 19.05.2025, and this Order was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The respondent no. 4 who is appellant herein was appointed as Registrar Evaluation in the third respondent's University, vide order dated 19.05.2025. The petitioner in the writ petition stated that the petitioner was wrongly removed from the post of Registrar Evaluation in third respondent university without any prior notice or intimation and wrongly repatriated to the post of Professor in the Davanagere University.
5. It is further submitted that the Minister of Higher Education had recommended that the petitioner should continue, as he had completed only one year, but this advice of the Education Minister was ignored and impugned order came to be issued appointing the respondent no. 2 as the Registrar Evaluation and repatriating the petitioner to the post of Professor in Davanagere University.
6. It is further submitted that the repatriation of the petitioner to the post of Professor in the University of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR Davanagere, Department of Kannada was also against the transfer guidelines of the State Government.
7. In the entire writ petition, there is nothing to suggest that the respondent no. 4 who is appellant herein, his appointment was challenged on the ground that petitioner had challenged the appointment of the appellant/respondent No.4 on the ground that he was not qualified.
8. The only contention which was raised by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in writ petition was that his repatriation was against the advice rendered by the Education Minister and without having issued any notice or prior intimation to him, he was repatriated to his post of Professor, Department of Kannada, University of Davanagere.
9. In the light of the aforesaid averments stated briefly above, the following prayers were made:
(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction quashing the impugned Notification dated 19/05/2025 bearing No.GS 07 KOM 2025 issued by the 2nd respondent -6- NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR thereby appointing Respondent No.4 herein to the Post of the Registrar Evaluation of 3rd respondent University, in place of the petitioner vide Annexure-'A' in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction directing the 2nd respondent to continue the services of the petitioner in the post of the Registrar Evaluation of Karnataka State Open University, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iii) Issue such other Writ or Order or Direction as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
10. It is not in dispute that Section 13 of the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992 and Clause 5 of the II Schedule attached to the Act provide for the appointment of Registrar of Examination, which reads as under:
"5. The Registrar of Examination (1) The Registrar of examination shall be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR Vice-Chancellor and the State Government and he shall be a whole time salaried officer of the University.
(2) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Registrar of examination shall be prescribed by the Ordinances.
11. From the reading of Clause 5 of the IInd Schedule to the Karnataka State Open University Act, it can be seen that there is no fixed tenure attached to the post of Registrar of Examination in the Karnataka State Open University . There is no open selection to the post of Registrar of Examination and the appointing authority/Chancellor has power of appointing any qualified person to the post of Registrar of Examination in the Karnataka State Open University. When the appointment of the Registrar of examination is under the pleasure doctrine, he can be also be removed or repatriated on the pleasure of the appointing authority. If we consider the order of repatriation of the petitioner, it does not assign reason, and therefore, it cannot be said that the order is stigmatic. It is not by way of punishment but only in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure, he -8- NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR has been repatriated after completion of one year from the post of Registrar Evaluation in the third respondent University.
12. Another learned Single Judge in the similar facts and circumstances of the case vide judgment and order dated 19.06.2017 in Writ Petition No.24645/2017 in the case of Dr. R. Rajanna -vs- State of Karnataka, wherein considering similar provision of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, held that the post of Registrar is neither a fixed tenure nor the petitioner could possibly claim any vested right to continue on the post of the Registrar of the Respondent-University. It would be the discretion of the State Government to appoint any of the eligible persons as Registrar, and merely because after a short period of about six months or so, the State Government had chosen to appoint another Registrar in place of the petitioner, in that case, appointment of another person would not become invalid or illegal.
13. Thus, it has been held that when there is no fixed tenure and the appointing authority has discretion to appoint any person without any selection who is qualified to the post of Registrar Evaluation which does not have any fixed tenure, the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR State Government or the appointing authority, as the case may be, would be entitled to cut short the tenure and appoint any other person.
14. In the present case also there is no fixed tenure for the post of Registrar Evaluation. The appointing authority, the Chancellor has discretion to appoint any qualified person to the post, and if the appointing authority has appointed any other person, that is the respondent no. 4, who is appellant herein, after one year of appointment of the petitioner, the said decision of the appointing authority cannot be challenged. The petitioner does not have any vested right to continue on the post. If the appointing authority takes a decision not to continue him, inasmuch as there is no fixed tenure assigned in the appointment letter of the petitioner to the post of Registrar's Evaluation, the said decision of the appointing authority cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner has not been able to show his right in law to continue to hold the post of Registrar evaluation in the respondent's University.
15. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge is unsustainable
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB WA No. 1621 of 2025 HC-KAR and the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue on the post of Registrar Evaluation, if the appointing authority has chosen to appoint the respondent no. 4 in his place. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order in view of the afore- stated discussion.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. Pending applications stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29