Dr S M Hurakadli S/O Maharudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6249 Kant

                          1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                      PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                         AND
         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
            W.A. No.100284 OF 2021 (S-TR)

BETWEEN
DR. S.M. HURAKADLI,
S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: REGISTRAR (EVALUATION),
R/O: RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
BELAGAVI-591156
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE & SRI. S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY THE
       UNDER SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
       EDUCATION UNIVERSITIES-2,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE-560001.

2.     THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
       RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
       VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
       BELAGAVI-591156.

3.     RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY,
                              2


      VIDYASANGAM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
      BELAGAVI-591156.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

4.    DR. VIRANGOUDA B PATIL,
      AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: PROFESSOR,
      R/O B.V.BHOOMRADDI COLLEGE OF
      ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
      VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580031
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY   SMT.    VIDYAVATHI    M.KOTTURSHETTAR,   ADDL.
ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH,
AGA FOR R1)
(BY SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYED THAT AFTER
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.102361/2021 AND FURTHER WP
NO.102361/2021 FILED BY THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER MAY
KINDLY BE ALLOWED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Appellant has called in question the order of the

learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2021 passed in WP

No.102361/2021 ,whereby the petition at the first instance

of Dr. S.M. Hurakadli (the appellant herein) challenging the

Notification dated 26.7.2021 at Annexure-B, whereby in

the place of petitioner/appellant, respondent No.4 was

appointed, came to be rejected.

2. Parties are referred to be their ranking before

the learned Single Judge for the purpose of convenience.

3. The facts made out are that the petitioner was

appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) as per Notification

dated 11.2.2020 at Annexure-A in terms of Section 18(1)

of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short,

'Act') until further orders. By notification dated 26.7.2021,

in place of petitioner, respondent No.4 came to be

appointed citing public and administrative reasons until

further orders and by same notification, petitioner's

services were repatriated to the parent department.

4. Petitioner being aggrieved by the said

notification had challenged his removal on various grounds

including that no reasons are assigned for curtailing the

tenure of the petitioner and Section 18 of the Act

envisages that Registrar (Evaluation) shall be whole time

officer of the University. Accordingly, removal of the

petitioner without assigning any reasons when the

petitioner had worked for a short tenure and considering

that he is due for retirement in November, 2022 was illegal

and arbitrary. It was further contended that post of the

Registrar (Evaluation) being vacant at the time of

appointment of the petitioner, his removal in a summary

manner considering that the Registrar (Evaluation)

performs important functions including being in-charge of

conduct of examinations was an anti-thesis of the principle

of security of tenure and being an arbitrary exercise of

power ought to be set-aside.

5. Reliance was also placed on the order passed

in WP No.1231/2020 dated 13.8.2020, wherein the learned

Single Judge had an occasion to interpret Section 18(1) of

the Act and had opined that though Section 18 did not

mention any tenure of such appointee there ought to be a

tenure which ought to be reasonable, neither too short nor

too long. Further it was pointed out that the learned

Single had clarified that expression "pleasure of chancellor"

being absent in Section 18, there was no warrant to read

into the said Section the expression "pleasure of

chancellor". Petitioner had also assailed the appointment

of respondent No.4 contending that respondent No.4 was

working in the KLE Technological University and

appointment of Registrar (Evaluation) under Section 18 is

to be limited to faculty of University and such University

would mean 'University' under Section 2(13) of the Act.

Learned Single Judge, however, has rejected the petition

while observing that the appointment of the petitioner was

made until further orders and the impugned notification

was passed after lapse of more than one year and that the

power to appoint would also include power to remove while

observing that the Government was well within power to

appoint and remove the Registrar (Evaluation).

6. The said order has been assailed while

contending that the grounds made out in the petition have

not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge

appropriately. It is contended that the Government has

failed to establish the existence of public and

administrative interests in appointing respondent No.4 in

place of the petitioner, that the appointment of respondent

No.4, who was an outsider to the University as defined

under Section 2(13) of the Act could not have been done

in terms of Section 18(1) of the Act and also that the

learned Single Judge did not take note of the order passed

in WP No.1231/2020 which provided for a fixity of tenure,

copy of which was enclosed at Annexure-C.

     7.    On    the   other       hand,   Smt.   Vidyavati    M

Kotturshettar,   learned   Addl.     Advocate     General     has

contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is

required to be upheld while drawing attention to the order

of appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-A, which

provided that the appointment of the petitioner was made

subject to further orders and that the order at Annexure-A

specifically provided that the service conditions would be

specified by a separate order. It is pointed out that

subsequently by Government order dated 6.8.2020, terms

and conditions of service of the petitioner have been

detailed, according to which, period of tenure was such

that it would cease from date of termination by the

government without assigning any reasons. Attention is

also drawn to other contentions which provide that the

government had reserved right to terminate the

appointment of the officials at any time without assigning

any reasons and consequently, the services of the

appointee shall stand repatriated to the parent

organization. Accordingly, it is submitted that action of the

government has been rightly upheld by the learned Single

Judge and no interference is called for.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also

supports the order of the learned Single Judge and would

contend that use of expression "any university" in Section

18 would have to be construed as permitting, any senior

faculty from any University other than Universities

specified under Section 2(13) of the Act to be appointed

under Section 18(1) of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted

that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge

does not call for interference.

9. It must be noted that Section 18 of the Act

does not provide for any tenure. However, it is also to be

noticed that the Registrar is to be a full time officer.

Appointment of the petitioner by order dated 11.2.2020 as

per Annexure-A was until further orders. Further in the

order at Annexure-A, it was specifically provided that the

service conditions relating to his appointment would be

contained in the separate order that would be passed. If

that were be so and as pointed out by the learned Addl.

Advocate General that the separate order has been passed

on 6.8.2020 detailing service conditions, wherein again

government reserved right for termination without

assigning any reasons, the petitioner cannot contend that

there has to be fixity in tenure. As on date, the petitioner

has continued in office from 11.2.2020, approximately for

a period of one year nine months.

10. Insofar as contention that the order of the

learned Single Judge in WP No.1231/2020 has not been

taken note of, it must be noted that the learned Single

Judge has relied on the order passed by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in WA No.617/2021 and connected

matters disposed off on 25.09.2021, while justifying the

inclusion of 'doctrine of pleasure' in Section 18 of the Act.

11. However, it must also to be noted that the

tenure of the petitioner was clarified by order dated

6.8.2020 clarifying the tenure as mentioned in the order of

appointment of the petitioner at Annexure-A and

conferring right on the State to terminate the tenure

simpliciter. Such facts are not made out as being preset in

the case which was the subject matter of the proceedings

in WP No.1231/2020. The Court while deciding WP No.

1231/2020 did not have the occasion to look into the fact

situation as available in the present case. Accordingly, this

Court is of the view that the order passed in WP

No.1231/2020 would not be applicable. Accordingly,

insofar as the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that

the order whereby respondent No.4 was appointed in place

of the petitioner and petitioner was repatriated to the

parent department does not call for interference. No other

grounds are made out for interference with the order of

the learned Single Judge.

12. Once the grounds are made out to uphold the

order of repatriating the petitioner to his parent

department, the question of looking into the portion of the

order whereby the respondent No.4 was appointed in place

of the petitioner strictly would not arise as right of the

petitioner is dependent on the strength of his own case.

However, though the learned Single Judge has recorded

findings regarding the validity of the appointment of

respondent No.4 while interpreting the words "any

University" under Section 18 of the Universities Act, we are

of the view that observations regarding competency of

appointment of respondent No.4 made by the learned

Single Judge are superflows which needs to be set aside.

Once the right of the petitioner to continue has been

negatived, there was no necessity of entering into the

question regarding validity of the appointment of

respondent No.4.

13. Insofar as the alleged illegalities pointed out as

regards to the appointment of respondent No.4 we leave it

open for the Government to look into the matter without

recording any finding in that regard.

14. Before parting while we affirm order of the

learned Single Judge it would be appropriate to observe by

way of a suggestion that wherever appointments are made

to posts with responsibility including that of the Registrar

(Evaluation), while noticing nature of functions being

performed by him in terms of Sec. 18(3) of the Act and

noticing that he is also a Member of the Syndicate, the

academic council and finance committee, it would be

appropriate for the Government as far as practicable to

provide fixity of tenure. The said observation is to be

confined to the realm of a suggestion.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off

affirming the order of the learned Single Judge subject to

the above observations.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE JTR/Bvv