The University Of Agricultural ... vs Sri. Dr. Digambarappa S/O ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5364 Kant

                               1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
                          PRESENT
     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                             AND
       THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
                  WA NO.100134 OF 2022
BETWEEN:

THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
U.A.S. DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
SRI. SHIVANAND KARALE, AGE. MAJOR
OCC. SERVICE, R/O. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.
                                       ....APPELLANT
(BY RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.     SRI. DR. DIGAMBARAPPA S/O PANDAPPA BIRADAR
       AGE. MAJOR, OCC. PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF AGRONOMY
       UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
       R/O. MADHUBAN, H.NO.6 MALAPRABHA NAGAR
       DHARWAD-580003.

2.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
       DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE,
       4TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,
       BENGALURU-01.

3.    DR. R. BASAVARAJAPPA
      AGE. MAJOR, PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY
      UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
      DHARWAD, R/O. 4TH CROSS,
      SBI COLONY, DHARWAD-03.
                                      ....RESPONDENTS
(R1 BY SRI.PRAKASHGOUDA N. HATTI, ADVOCATE)
(R2 BY PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP)
(R3 BY SRI.HARSHA DESAI, ADVOCATE)
                                   2

      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO, CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN WP NO.100928/2022 (S-RES) ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED    SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 MADE IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AS
THE SAME BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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


                             JUDGMENT

The University is in appeal challenging the order of

the learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2022 passed in WP

No.100928/2022, which is in the nature of interim order.

2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank

before the learned Single Judge for the sake of

convenience.

3. The petitioner had challenged the appointment

of respondent No.3 as Director of Education and had

sought for interim relief of stay of Annexure-C, by virtue of

which, respondent No.3 was appointed as Director of

Education.

4. It is undisputed as regards service of notice

that the Government Advocate had accepted notice for the

University and was represented as on the date of passing

of the interim order dated 14.03.2022 and though notice

was issued to respondent No.3, he was not before the

Court as on the date of passing of the order. It must be

noted that due stay of Annexure-C, by virtue of which

respondent No.3 had occupied the office and was in-charge

as on the date the learned Single Judge had passed the

order his continuance was sought to be disturbed.

Accordingly, the rights of the respondent No.3 were in

issue and if any order were to be passed, affecting the

rights of respondent No.3, he was required to be heard.

This was also since, notice was issued at an earlier point of

time and as on date of passing the impugned order only

the Government and University were served and the

respondent No.3 was not yet served.

5. The direction passed in Para No.6 of the

interim order which reads as under:

"6. This having not been done, it would be necessary to not only stay the operation of Annexure-C, but also direct the Universities to place the petitioner in -charge of the post of Director of Education in the place of the third respondent, even if the third respondent has already been handed over charge by replacing him".

6. It must be noted that the main relief sought in

the writ petition was quashing of Annexure-C. Relief at

column 'C' that was sought for was for a direction to the

University to consider the representation filed by the

petitioner. If that was the relief to be granted, it was for

the University, to reconsider further steps consequent to

the setting aside the Annexure-C. However, the direction

at para No.6 in effect has resulted in granting the final

relief sought for i.e., setting aside of Annexure-C, by virtue

of stay of interim order at Annexure-C and further granting

a direction to the University to place the petitioner as in-

charge for the post of Director of Education in place of

respondent No.3. On the basis of such direction, there has

been an encroachment of the power of the University

which is the authority to pass an order placing an

appropriate person in place of the respondent No.3. Even if

the writ petition were to be allowed and prayer (a) and (c)

were granted, it is the University which has to pass the

final order. However, the Court has granted relief beyond

what the petitioner has sought for at the interim stage,

which is impermissible.

7. It is observed that once notice was issued on

the petition and no ex-parte order was passed, any order

that was passed on 14.03.2022, ought to have been

passed after appearance of the respondent No.3, with

respect to whom notice was not yet served. Accordingly,

we find that this is a matter that requires to be relegated

to the learned Single Judge by setting aside the order

dated 14.03.2022. We make it clear that we are interfering

with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge

in view of procedural lapse. We have not expressed or

recorded any findings on the merits of the matter.

Accordingly, all contentions of both sides are kept open.

The order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2022

passed in WP No.100928/2022 is set aside. Matter is

remitted to the learned Single Judge to pass orders on the

interim relief or dispose of the petition itself. Accordingly,

the petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PJ