Sri N Jayaramappa vs The Bangalore University
2021 Latest Caselaw 1205 Kant

                          -1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           WRIT APPEAL No.344/2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI N. JAYARAMAPPA
S/O. LATE NEELAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS A PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE - 560 056.                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE (THROUGH V/C))

AND:

1.     THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
       JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
       BANGALORE - 560 056
       REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2.     DR. A.S. RAVIKUMAR
       S/O. LATE ALANASIDAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
       PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROFESSOR,
       DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
       BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
       JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
       BANGALORE - 560 056.

3.     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT HIGHER EDUCATION,
       KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
       MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BANGALORE - 560 001.           ... RESPONDENTS
                                  -2-



(BY SRI B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
   SRI VIJAYA KUMAR V.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI BAJENTRI
   ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES FOR R-2;
   SRI C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
   ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.5044/2020 DATED 11/03/2020.

     THIS   APPEAL  COMING    ON   FOR  HEARING  -
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is listed to consider I.A.No.2/2020, which

is filed for early hearing by the appellant. With the

consent of learned counsel on both sides, the appeal is

heard finally.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant/writ petitioner drew our attention to the

impugned order dated 11/03/2020, passed in

W.P.No.5044/2020. He submitted that while on the one

hand, learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition

on the ground that the petitioner could not have been a

contender to the post of professor as he was appointed

only on 25/07/2019 against the backlog vacancy,

nevertheless, has reserved liberty to the

petitioner/appellant herein to question the right of the

second respondent to hold the post of Chairman in the

Civil Engineering Department. He submitted that the

liberty would not serve any purpose in view of the finding

given by the learned single Judge in paragraph No.5 of the

impugned order. Learned senior counsel submitted that if

the finding recorded by the learned single Judge would not

come in the way of reserving liberty to the writ

petitioner/appellant herein to file a fresh writ petition

questioning the right of the second respondent to hold the

post of Chairman in the Engineering Department, ends of

justice would be served.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/University

as well as learned counsel for the second respondent and

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

State submitted that in view of the liberty reserved by the

learned single Judge to the appellant to assail the

appointment of the second respondent as Chairman in the

Civil Engineering Department by filing a fresh writ petition,

appropriate order may be made in this appeal.

4. We have considered the submission of learned

senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for

the respondents and we have perused the impugned order.

5. Learned single Judge has ultimately reserved

liberty to the appellant to assail the appointment of the

second respondent as Chairman in the Civil Engineering

Department. If such a liberty has been reserved by the

learned single Judge which is not assailed by any of the

parties in this appeal, then the said liberty must be

complete, without there being any other finding given in

the impugned order, which would be a hurdle or come in

the way of exercising the liberty by the appellant to file a

comprehensive writ petition, assailing the right of the

second respondent herein to hold the post of the Chairman

in the Civil Engineering Department. Therefore, we

dispose of this appeal by affirming the liberty granted by

the learned single Judge to the appellant to file a

comprehensive writ petition assailing the appointment of

the second respondent as a Chairman in the Civil

Engineering Department. In doing so, we observe that all

findings arrived at by the learned single Judge stand

effaced and would not come in the way of the appellant in

filing a comprehensive writ petition assailing the

appointment of the second respondent to the post of

Chairman in the Civil Engineering Department, if so

advised.

6. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid

terms.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2020

is allowed and all pending applications stand disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE S*