Karnataka High Court

B Sanjaya vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024

                              1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

          WRIT PETITION NO.28618 OF 2023 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

     B SANJAYA
     S/O BOMMAIAH
     AGED 51 YEARS
     ADVOCATE
     NO.2-4TH FLOOR, THIMMAIAH TOWERS
     1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
     BANGALORE 560 009

                                               ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI H.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
        VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001
        REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

2.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
        REFORMS (SERVICES 2)
        VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001
        REP BY ITS SECRETARY
                               2



3.    SMT. ANURADHA VASTRADA
      REGISTRAR
      KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
      NAVANAGARA, HUBBALI-580 025

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.GURUDEV GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING IN THE NATURE
OF QUO-WARRANTO DIRECTING THE R-3 TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY OF LAW SHE IS HOLDING THE POST OF
REGISTRAR OF THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERISTY.

    THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 21.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking a writ of quo

warranto directing the respondent No.3 to show cause as to

under what authority of law she is appointed as the Registrar

of Karnataka State Law University (KSLU).

2. Petitioner who is a practising lawyer at Bengaluru is

assailing the appointment of respondent No.3 as Registrar of

KSLU on the ground that respondent No.3 is not eligible to be

appointed as the Registrar of KSLU. Petitioner claims that

respondent No.3 is a Junior Scale Officer of Karnataka

Administrative Service and therefore, referring to sub-section

(2) of Section 17 of the Karnataka State Law University

(Amendment) Act, 2016, it is contended that respondent No.3

lacks eligibility to be appointed as the Registrar of KSLU.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

reiterating the grounds has placed reliance on amended

Section 17 of the Act. To buttress his arguments, he has

placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the following

cases:

1) Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others - (2013) 1 SCC 501;

2) Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others - (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I);

3) Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others - (2014) 1 SCC 161;

4) Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others - (2010) 9 SCC 655.

4. Referring to the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in the judgments cited supra, he would vehemently

argue and contend that appointing respondent No.3 as the

Registrar of KSLU is contrary to Section 17(2) of the Act and

therefore, this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto.

Referring to sub-section (2) of Section 17, he would

vehemently argue and contend that respondent No.3 lacks

eligibility and since appointment is contrary to statutory Rules,

the concept of locus standi is not at all applicable and

therefore, the contest to the captioned petition by respondent

No.3 on the ground of locus standi cannot be entertained

when a writ is filed seeking quo warranto.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3 reiterating the defence set up in the

statement of objections, however, has countered the

petitioner's claim that respondent No.3 lacks eligibility to be

appointed as Registrar of the University. Referring to

amended Section 17, he would bring to the notice of this Court

that petitioner's claim that respondent No.3 lacks eligibility is

totally misconceived. He would vehemently argue and

contend that Section 6(A) is virtually misinterpreted by the

petitioner while seeking a writ of quo warranto. Taking this

Court through clause (2) of Section 17, he would point out

that the State Government cannot appoint an officer not below

the rank of Group 'A' senior scale in the Department of Law or

Department of Parliamentary Affairs. He would point out that

this has to be read in one part. He would point out that the

later part of sub-section (2) has to be read independently.

Therefore, referring to later part of sub-section (2), he would

point out that an officer belonging to All India Service or

Karnataka Administrative Service are eligible to be appointed

as Registrar of University. He would submit that sub-section

(2) does not contemplate and impose eligibility criteria in the

cadre of All India Service and Karnataka Administrative

Service. Therefore, he would contend that there is no

embargo that a Junior Scale Officer in the cadre of Karnataka

Administrative Service cannot be appointed as a Registrar.

6. To buttress his arguments on the locus of petitioner

in maintaining the captioned petition, he has placed reliance

on the following judgments:

1) Kesavan vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another - AIR 1979 Madras 133;

2) S.Chandramohan Nair vs. George Joseph and Others - Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.33694 of 2009;

3) Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Rajeshwar Dayal and Others -

2004 1 SWC 291A.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.3.

8. The contention raised by the petitioner in regard to

respondent No.3's eligibility to hold the post of Registrar has

to be gathered from the language of Section 17 of the Act.

The amended Section 17 reads as under:

"6A. Amendment of Section 17.- In section 17 of the principal Act, for sub-section (2), the following shall be substituted, namely:-

"(2) The State Government may appoint an officer not below the rank of Group-A senior scale of the Department of Law or Department of Parliamentary Affairs or an officer belonging to All India Service or Karnataka Administrative Service as Registrar of the University.

Provided that in case no officer specified sub- section (2), is available then a professor with not less than five years of service as Professor may be appointed as Registrar of the University."

9. On meticulous examination of sub-section (2) of

Section 17, the contention raised by the counsel appearing for

respondent No.3 finds some force. Sub-section (2) clearly

reveals that when an officer from a Department of Law or

Department of Parliamentary Affairs is proposed to be

appointed as the Registrar of the University, then such an

officer should not be below the rank of Group 'A' Senior scale.

While if an officer belonging to All India Service and Karnataka

Administrative Service is proposed to be appointed, then there

is no additional requirement that an officer should be of a

senior pay scale as claimed by the petitioner. The only

requirement is that he should be either a All India Service

cadre or from Karnataka Administrative Service. Therefore,

the eligibility criteria when a KAS cadre officer is proposed, no

additional eligibility of senior scale is imposed in sub-section

(2). Petitioner's claim that Group 'A' Junior Scale of Karnataka

Administrative Service is not eligible to hold the post of

Registrar is totally misconceived.

10. Even if petitioner's contention in regard to eligibility

of respondent No.3 to hold the post of Registrar of Karnataka

State Law University is accepted, this Court still needs to

examine as to whether petitioner has locus to question the

appointment of respondent No.3 as Registrar of KSLU, Hubli.

11. The term "quo warranto" is Latin for "by what

authority" or "by what warrant." At its core, a writ of quo

warranto aims to ensure that individuals holding public offices

or exercising public functions do so with proper legal authority

and qualifications. It serves as a mechanism to address

situations where there are doubts or disputes regarding the

validity of a claim to a public position or authority.

12. The literal meaning of quo warranto is "by what

authority." This writ enables the questioning of a person who

occupies or usurps an independent substantive office, asking

them to justify the authority under which they claim the

position. According to Halsbury, "An information in the nature

of quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo

warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped

an office, franchise, or liberty, to inquire by what authority he

supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or

franchise might be determined."

13. Any individual has the right to challenge the validity

of an appointment to a public office, regardless of whether

their fundamental or other legal rights have been infringed.

However, the Court must ensure that the person bringing the

challenge is acting in good faith and that there is a genuine

public interest in declaring that there has been an usurpation

of a public office.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. B. Singh

vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others1, has emphasized the

importance of bona fides and public interest for a person to

have locus standi. The Court criticized individuals who bring

frivolous or vexatious petitions solely for personal gain or

private profit, or for other extraneous motives such as seeking

publicity. The Court highlighted the need for applicants to

demonstrate their credentials, the prima facie correctness or

nature of the information provided, and the gravity and

seriousness of the issue at hand. It cautioned against allowing

wild and reckless allegations that besmirch the character of

others, while also aiming to prevent mischievous petitions that

(2004) 3 SCC 363

seek to undermine justifiable executive actions for oblique

motives. In such cases, the Court must strike a delicate

balance between addressing public grievances and respecting

the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and

legislature.

15. Therefore it is imperative that an applicant seeking

a writ of quo warranto must fulfill in demonstrating that the

contested office is indeed a public office and that it possesses

the characteristics of a public nature. Only when this condition

is satisfied can the Court proceed to examine whether the

appointment to the public office violates statutory rules and

regulations or any provision of law.

16. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Pradeep P.

Prajapati Vs. Principal Secretary And Others2, while

referencing various definitions of a public office, has held as

follows:

(2012) 2 GLH 781

"What can be deduced from the term "Public Office" as explained by various authors and the authoritative pronouncements is that a public office is the right, Authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of the sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public Authority for a public purpose, embracing the ideas of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. A public officer is, thus, to be distinguished from a mere employment or agency resting on contract, to which such powers and functions are not attached.

The Common Law Rule is that in order for the writ to lie, the office must be of a public nature. The determining factor, the test, is whether the office involves a delegation of some of the solemn functions of Government, either executive, legislative or judicial, to be exercised by the holder for the public benefit. Unless his powers are of this nature, he is not a public officer."

17. In the present case, the position of Registrar of

Karnataka State Law University primarily involves

administrative functions related to the internal operations of

the university. While administrative roles are crucial for the

efficient functioning of the institution, they do not inherently

constitute the solemn functions of government typically

associated with public offices. The Registrar's responsibilities

are oriented towards facilitating internal administrative and

academic processes of the university, rather than directly

serving the broader public interest or administering

governmental authority. Furthermore, any failure or neglect in

performing the duties of the Registrar primarily affects internal