Karnataka High Court
The Chancellor Of Universities vs Dr.G. Venkatesh Kumar on 23 February, 2024
Author: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2023
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2023
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1446 OF 2023
IN W.A. No. 1159 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
PROF. LOKANATH .N.K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS
VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
POST BOX NO. 405
MYSORE-570 005. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY
S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
2
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PROFESSOR
SCHOOL OF PHYSICS
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD
R/O 498, SURAGI 6TH A MAIN
RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
2. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA
SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE-570 006.
5. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR
SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI
MYSORE-570 006. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 IN WA No.1159/2023;
SHRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 IN
WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 IN WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
3
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R3 IN
WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 IN
WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023)
IN W.P. No. 11875/2023
BETWEEN:
PROF. LOKANATH .N.K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS
VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
POST BOX NO. 405
MYSORE-570 005. ...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. K. ABHISHEK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO. SONIDHI, 10TH MAIN
19TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
VIJAYANAGAR
MYSURU-570 030.
2. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
4
4. THE REGISTRAR
MYSORE UNIVERSITY
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA
SOUDHA CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE-570 006.
5. THE CHAIRMAN
THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR
SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI
MYSORE-570 006. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 IN WA No.1159/2023;
SHRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 IN
WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. SANTHOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 IN WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R3 IN
WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023;
SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 IN
WA No.1159/2023 AND WA No.1170/2023)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGEMENT DATED
12/09/2023 PASSED IN WP NO.9068/2023 CONNECTED WITH WP
NO.11875/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IN WP NO.
9068/2023 CONNECTED WITH WP NO. 11875/2023 AND PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTION.
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
5
IN W.A. No.1199 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001 ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONIDHI, 10TH MAIN
19TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
VIJAYANAGAR
MYSURU-570 030
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA
KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE-570 006.
4. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR
SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSURU-570 006.
5. PROF. LOKANATH N.K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
6
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA
KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
POST BOX NO.405
MYSORE-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2;
SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 12/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.11875/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION NO.11875/2023 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO. 1201 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY
S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PROFESSOR
SCHOOL OF PHYSICS
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD
R/AT 498, SURAGI 6TH A MAIN
RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
7
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA
KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE-570 006.
4. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE FOR
SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI, MYSURU-570 006.
5. PROF. LOKANATH N.K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA
KARYA SOUDHA, CRAWFORD HALL
POST BOX NO.405
MYSORE-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2;
SHRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SHRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO.
9068/2023 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
8
PETITION NO. 9068/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION NO. 9068/2023 AND ETC.
IN W.A. No.1446 OF 2023
IN W.P. NO. 9068/2023
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2, MS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001. ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA AND
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA)
AND:
1. PROF. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY
S/O U.R. ANANTHMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PROFESSOR
SCHOOL OF PHYSICS
UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD
R/AT 498, SURAGI 6TH A MAIN
RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
2. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE-570 006.
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
9
4. THE SEARCH COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI
MYSORE-570 006.
5. PROF. LOKANATH .N.K
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS
VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
POST BOX NO. 405
MYSORE-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. H.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
IN W.P. NO.11875/2023
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2
MS BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001. ...PETITIONER
AND:
1. DR. G. VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO. SONIDHI, 10TH MAIN
19TH CROSS, C BLOCK, 3RD STAGE
VIJAYANAGAR
MYSURU-570 030.
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
10
2. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
RAJ BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
VISHWAVIDYANILAY KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL
MYSURU-570 006.
4. THE CHAIRMAN
SEARCH COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
MANASAGANGOTRI
MYSURU-570 006.
5. PROF. LOKANATH N.K
S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRESENTLY POST AS VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
VISHWAVIDYANILAYA KARYA SOUDHA
CRAWFORD HALL, POST BOX NO.405
MYSURU-570 005. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NOS.
9068 OF 2023 C/W 11875/2023 (S-RES) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 12.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NOS. 9068 OF 2023 C/W 11875 OF 2023 (S-RES) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:-
W.A. No.1159/2023
C/W W.A. No.1199/2023
W.A. No.1201/2023
W.A. No.1446/2023
11
JUDGMENT
These intra court appeals arise out of common order
dated September 12th, 2023 passed in W.P.No. 9068/2023
and W.P. No. 11875/2023.
2. One Prof.Loknath N.K has been appointed as the
Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysore.
3. Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy has challenged the
said appointment in W.P.No.9068/2023 and Dr. Venkatesh
Kumar has challenged the said appointment in W.P.No.
11875/2023. By the impugned order, the Writ Petitions have
been allowed and appointment of Prof.Loknath has been set-
aside.
4. The Chancellor has challenged the order in
W.A.No.1199/2023 and W.A.No.1201/2023. The State has
challenged the order in W.A.No.1446/2023. Prof. Loknath
has challenged the order in W.A.No.1159/2023.
5. The subject matter of all these appeals is one and
the same. Hence, they are heard simultaneously and
disposed of by this common order.
6. Heard Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned
Advocate General for the State, Shri. Uday Holla, learned
Senior Advocate for the Chancellor of Universities,
Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for Prof.
Loknath, and Shri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate for the Writ Petitioners.
7. Briefly stated facts of the case are, vide
notification dated 02.11.2022, the Government of Karnataka
constituted a search-cum-selection committee for the
selection of Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore. The State
Government published a list containing 71 applicants along
with the details of departmental enquiries against the
applicants. Prof.Loknath was at Sl.No.28 in the list. In the
remarks column, it was indicated that there was an
appointment dispute against him and he was not eligible as
per UGC Regulations. Prof. Loknath gave a representation
to the Chancellor stating that no enquiry was pending
against him. The Chancellor forwarded the representation to
the State Government.
8. Prof.Rajashekar Biradar, whose name was at
Sl.No.44 in the list also had a similar remark. He challenged
the list in W.P.No. 25759/2022. This Court directed the
authorities to conduct the selection proceedings according to
Karnataka State Universities Act, 20001.
9. A fresh list was prepared including the names of
Prof.Loknath and Prof.Rajashekar and a panel consisting of
three names viz. Prof.Loknath, Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy
and Guru was constituted. The Chancellor selected
Prof.Loknath as the Vice-Chancellor. Feeling aggrieved,
Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy and Dr.Venkatesh Kumar have
approached this Court in W.P.No. 9068 /2023 and W.P.No.
11875/2023. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ
'KSU Act' for short
Petitions and set-aside Prof.Loknath's appointment. Hence,
these appeals.
10. Shri. Uday Holla, for the Chancellor of
Universities, praying to allows these appeals, mainly
submitted that:
● this Court in W.P.No.25759/2022 has directed the
authorities to act in accordance with Section 14 of the
KSU Act. This implies that a new list had to be
prepared;
● in furtherance of the orders of this Court, a fresh
meeting was held and a new list was prepared;
● UGC regulations are not applicable;
● the learned Single Judge has held that candidature of
Prof.Loknath must be considered. The impugned order
is erroneous and is liable to be set-aside.
11. Shri. Shashi Kiran Shetty, the Advocate General
also argued on similar lines.
12. Shri. Haranhalli, for Prof. Loknath submitted that:
● selection of Prof. Loknath is in accordance with Section
14(4) of KSU Act;
● appointment notification clearly states that the
concurrence has been obtained from the State;
● there is no ministerial interference in the selection
process;
● the first list had not reached finality as it was not
forwarded to the Chancellor;
● Prof.Loknath is an outstanding academician. He has
published 63 research articles in reputed international
journals and has also served as Scientist in Japan and
South Korea.
13. Shri. Ravivarma Kumar, arguing in support of the
impugned order, mainly submitted that:
● Prof.Loknath was disqualified by the Search
Committee;
● entire selection process has been interfered with by the
Minister;
● the direction of this Court does not order preparation
of new select list;
● the State Government should not interfere with the
selection proceedings;
● Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations overrides the State
Act;
● once Selection Committee sends panel, selection has to
be made from that list;
● this Court in W.P. No. 25759/2022 declared
Prof.Rajashekar as eligible, but did not direct redoing
of the list;
● UGC Regulations specifies only one panel;
● Prof.Loknath lacks morals and integrity.
14. We have carefully heard rival contentions on both
sides and perused the records.
On the basis of the above pleadings, the points that arise for
our consideration are:
(i) Whether appointment of Prof.Loknath as
Vice-Chancellor is bad in law?
(ii) Whether the impugned order requires any
interference?
Re. points no. (i) and (ii):
15. Since both points are interlinked, they are
considered together.
16. Undisputed facts of the case are, the Government
of Karnataka constituted a search-cum-selection committee
for the selection of Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore.
The State published a list of 71 applicants. The list contained
a remarks column in which the details regarding
departmental enquiries against the applicants were given.
Prof.Loknath, was at Sl.No.28 in the list. In the remarks
column, it was noted that he was not eligible because there
was an appointment dispute against him. Similar remarks
were found in the case of Prof.Rajashekar at Sl.No.44.
17. Prof.Loknath gave a representation to the
chancellor stating that no enquiry was pending against him.
The Chancellor forwarded the representation.
Prof.Rajashekar approached this Court in
W.P.No. 25759/2022. This Court on 06.03.2023 has allowed
the writ petition.
18. After disposal of W.P.No.25759/2022 a fresh
panel consisting of three names viz. Prof.Loknath,
Prof.Sharath Ananthmurthy and Guru was sent to the
Chancellor. Out of the three names, Prof.Loknath has been
selected.
19. We may record that the learned Single Judge has
allowed the Writ Petitions, mainly on these grounds:
Reconsideration of all eligible names afresh on the
ground that the order in W.P. 25759/2022 did not
order consideration on the basis of fresh selection
list;
The Chancellor deviated from the procedure
prescribed under Section 14 and sought report from
the Minister regarding the complaint of Prof.
Lokanath and the Minister without requirement of
law that panel of 3 names had already been
submitted to the State Government was required to
be forwarded to the Chancellor deviated from the
statutory procedure. The opinion of the Minister that
exclusion of Prof. Lokanath was not proper, was
without jurisdiction;
Selection Committee has not given weightage to 3
factors in writing as required under the UGC
Regulations, when it forwarded the 3 names and
therefore there is violation of UGC Regulations.
20. We have perused the order in Court in
W.P. No.25759/2022. The operative portion reads thus:
"13. It is made clear that the respondent - authorities shall
appoint Vice-Chancellor to the University of Mysore,
Mysuru, strictly in adherence to the provisions
contemplated under the Karnataka State Universities Act,
2000 and take further steps in the matter as mentioned
above."
21. Thus, this Court ordered the selection to be made
in accordance with the KSU Act.
22. Section 14 of the KSU Act, reads thus:
"14. The Vice-Chancellor.-
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the
University.
(2) The State Government shall constitute a Search
Committee consisting of four persons of whom, one shall
be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the University
Grants Commission, one by the State Government and one
by the Syndicate. The State Government shall appoint one
of the members as the Chairman of the Committee. The
Secretary to Government incharge of higher education or
his nominee not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to
Government shall be the convenor of the Search
Committee.
(3) No person connected with the affairs of the State
Government, the University or any college or institution
affiliated to the University shall be nominated as the
member of the Search Committee. (4) The Search
Committee shall submit to the State Government a panel of
three persons who are eminent academicians, in the
alphabetical order. The State Government shall forward the
panel to the Chancellor who shall keeping in view merit,
equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the
State Government, appoint one person from the panel as
the Vice-Chancellor:
Provided that the Chancellor may with the concurrence of
the State Government call for a second panel if he
considers it necessary and the Search Committee shall
submit a second panel which shall be final.
1 [Provided further that the Vice Chancellor of the 7
[Akkamahadevi Women University] 7 at Bijapur shall, as
far as practicable be a women: Provided also that
notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section
the First Vice Chancellor of the 7 [Akkamahadevi Women
University] 7 shall be appointed by the State Government
subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified.]
1 2 [Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary
contained in this section, the first Vice Chancellor of the
Tumkur University shall be appointed by the State
Government subject to such terms and conditions as may
be specified by it]2 3 [Provided also that not withstanding
anything contrary contained in this section, the first
Vice-Chancellor of the Davanagere University shall be
appointed by the State Government subject to such terms
and conditions as may be specified by it.] 3 4 [Provided
also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in
this section, the first Vice-Chancellors of the Vijayanagara
Sri Krishnadevaraya University and Ranichannamma
University shall be appointed by the State Government
subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified
by it.]4 6 [Provided also that notwithstanding anything
contrary contained in this section, first Vice-Chancellors of
the Bengaluru Central University and Bengaluru North
University shall be appointed by the State Government
subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified
by it] 6 5 [(5)No person shall be appointed or hold office of
the Vice Chancellor if he has attained the age of sixty seven
years.]5
(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the
Chancellor and the provisions of sub-section
(5) hold the office for a period of four years. He shall not
be eligible for reappointment, for a second term.
(7) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed from his
office except by an order of the Chancellor passed on the
ground of willful omission or refusal to carry out the
provisions of this Act or for abuse of the powers vested in
him and on the advice tendered by the State Government
on consideration of the report of an inquiry ordered by it
under sub-section (8).
(8) For the purposes of holding an inquiry under this
section the State Government shall appoint a person who is
or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme
Court. The inquiry authority shall hold the inquiry after
giving an opportunity to make representation by the Vice-
Chancellor and shall submit a report to the State
Government on the action to be taken including penalty, if
any, to be imposed, and the State Government shall on
consideration of the report advise the Chancellor. The
Chancellor shall act in accordance with such advice, as far
as may be, within six months.
(9) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the
ViceChancellor shall be such as may be determined by the
Chancellor and shall not be varied to his dis-advantage
after his appointment as ViceChancellor. In the event of a
Vice-Chancellor retiring on superannuation during his
tenureship as Vice-Chancellor, his conditions of service
already determined shall continue to be in vogue. All his
pensionary benefits shall be kept in abeyance which shall
be released after his demitting the office of the Vice-
Chancellor.
(10) If a retired person is appointed as Vice-Chancellor, the
terms and conditions of service upon his appointment as
Vice-Chancellor including emoluments shall be determined
by the Chancellor. The emoluments shall be reduced by the
amount of pension and allowances drawn by him.
(11) If a Professor in the service of a University in the State
is appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his terms and conditions of
service as Professor shall not be revised to his
dis-advantage during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor and he
shall retain his lien in his post."
23. As per Section 14 of the KSU Act, it mandates
preparation of panel of eligible candidates.
24. The direction contained in Para 12 of the order in
W.P.No. 25759/2022 against the authorities is to address
the grievance of Prof.Rajashekar and act in accordance with
Section 14 of the KSU Act. Pursuant to the said directions,
the State Government have re-examined and found that
remarks against Prof.Rajashekar and Prof.Loknath were
factually incorrect. As rightly urged by Shri. Uday Holla that
there is neither addition nor deletion in the list of applicants.
However, based on the corrected list, a new panel of three
members has been prepared. Therefore, the contention that
Prof.Loknath was disqualified by the Search Committee is
without any substance because, based on his
representation, the State Government have re-examined
and found that remarks were factually incorrect.
25. Shri.Ravivarma submitted that order in W.P.No.
25759/2022 is restricted to the petitioner therein alone. This
submission is untenable because, the said order does not
restrict the benefit to the petitioner therein, but on the other
hand, the direction is to act in accordance with Section 14
and also to address grievance of Prof.Rajashekar, the
petitioner therein. His grievance before this Court was, that
in the remarks were wrongly recorded against him in the list
of candidates. Similar is the grievance of Prof.Loknath, who
instead of filing a writ petition has approached the
Chancellor. If the grievance of Prof.Rajashekar would be
addressed, pursuant to order passed by this Court, it would
be just and appropriate to extend the benefit to all those
applicants against whose name, some adverse remark was
entered.
26. It was next contended by Shri. Ravivarma that
the entire selection process has been interfered by the
Minister who had no jurisdiction in the selection process.
27. We may record that the Chancellor was not a
party in W.P. No.25759/2022. The order in W.P.
No.25759/2022 directed the State to take necessary action.
Therefore, minister holding portfolio has issued the notice
which is in compliance with the order passed by this Court.
Hence, in our view the said contention does not merit
consideration.
28. It was vehemently argued by Shri. Ravivarma
that once selection committee sends a panel, selection has
to be made from it as there is no provision under the UGC
Regulations to call for a second panel. This contention is also
untenable for more than one reason:
● Firstly because, before the first panel could reach
the Chancellor, Shri. Loknath had submitted his
representation and Prof.Rajashekar had filed his
writ petition2 . Pursuant to orders of this Court in
W.P. No.25759/2022, the remarks in the case of
Prof. Rajashekar and Prof. Loknath were deleted.
The resultant position is, a fresh panel had to be
drawn out of the corrected list. It is not in
dispute that one and the only one panel which
reached the Chancellor is the panel prepared out
of the corrected list;
● Secondly because, Section 14(4) of the KSU Act,
vests Chancellor the power to call for a second
panel;
● Thirdly because, it is not in dispute that the UGC
Regulations have not been adopted by State of
Karnataka. On behalf of the writ petitioner,
reliance has been placed on Gambhirdhan K
Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors3. The relied
portion reads thus:
"It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section
26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as
per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under
the said Act, shall be laid before each House of the
Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation,
UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any
conflict between State legislation and Central legislation,
Central legislation shall prevail by applying the
rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254
of the Constitution as the subject 'education' is in the
Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution."
29. It was urged by Ravivarma that UGC shall prevail
over State Act. In reply it was argued by Shri. Holla that, in
case of Kalyani Mathivannan Vs K V Keyaraj And Ors4 , it is
held that if the UGC Act and Regulations are not adopted,
they cannot be made applicable. The relevant para reads as
follows:
(2022)5 SCC 179
(2015) 6 SCC 363
"However, the Scheme under UGC Regulations, 2010 is not
applicable to the teaching staffs of the Universities, Colleges
and other higher educational institutions coming under the
purview of State Legislature, unless State Government wish
to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to terms and
conditions mentioned therein."
30. We may record that in Gambhidharan's case, it is
held as follows:
"It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving
Central Financial Assistance and under the scheme and it is
included in the state Universities receiving Central Financial
Assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.
Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme and
implemented the same and getting Central Financial
Assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance
expenditure, the State Government and the SP University
are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC
regulations, 2010 are superseded by UGC Regulations,
2018. Xxxxxxxxxxxx. Therefore the State of Gujurat and
the Universities thereunder including the SP University are
bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC
Regulations, 2018."
31. It was urged by Shri. Holla that University of
Mysore is not receiving any central finance. On this premise,
he is right in his submission that the UGC regulations will
not be applicable.
32. Another contention of Shri. Ravivarma is that,
according to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, the
search-cum-selection committee had to give proper
weightage to these three factors in writing, along with panel
of names:
● the academic excellence;
● exposure to higher education system in the
country and abroad;
● adequate expertise in academic and
administrative governance.
33. He urged that the Selection Committee has not
followed the above procedure. This contention does not
merit consideration because, as discussed above, UGC
Regulations shall not be applicable. Further this Court in
W.P.No. 25759/2022 has held that the selection process
shall be in accordance with the KSU Act. Hence, grievance
with regard to non application of UGC Regulations is
untenable.
34. Yet another contention was urged by Shri.
Ravivarma that the State Government's consent was not
obtained as required under Section 14 of the KSU Act. The
Advocate General clarified that the selection had the
concurrence of the State Government. He also contended
that if State Government had not consented to the
appointment notification, they would have moved this court
questioning the appointment. Further, notification of
appointment of Prof.Loknath expressly mentions that it is
with the concurrence of the State Government.
35. The next argument advanced by the writ
petitioners was that Commission of Inquiry headed by
Hon'ble Justice Rangavittalachar (Retired) has indicted
Prof.Loknath.
36. This argument is noted only to be rejected
because, based on the report, certain appointments were
annulled. Prof.Loknath had challenged the said order of
annulment in W.P.No. 29220/2014 and other connected
matters. This Court has set- aside the annulment order and,
thus it has attained finality. The resultant position is adverse
finding if any by One Man Commission enquiry is
inconsequential.
37. Shri. Ravivarma lastly urged that Prof.Loknath
lacks the morals and integrity and that there are several
allegations against him. This contention does not merit
consideration because Learned Single Judge in para 98 has
recorded that and that finding is not under challenge:
"98. The fact that he disclosed these developments in his
representation to the Chancellor and the further fact that
the Search Committee, along with the Chancellor,
proceeded to accept his grievance on his exclusion from the
zone of consideration on these grounds, which had no
bearing to his academic eligibility or expertise, is clear
proof of the fact that the allegations attributed by the
petitioners on Prof. Lokanath cannot be accepted and his
candidature was required to be considered."
38. Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
Apex Court has recorded in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke And
Ors. Vs Dr. B.S. Mahajan And Ors5:
"It is needless to emphasis that it is not the function of the
Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the
Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post
or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection
Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The
Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection
Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds,
such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the
Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the
selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc."
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. The above view has been followed in Basaviah Vs.
Dr.H.L.Ramesh6; and Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj
Kumar7.
(1990)1 SCC 305
(2010) 8 SCC 372
40. In conclusion we may record that the Search
Committee was formed according to law. The adverse
remarks against Prof.Loknath and Prof.Rajashekar and
others were rectified as per orders of this Court in W.P.
No.25795/2022. Thereafter only one panel consisting of
three members have been sent and the Chancellor has
selected and appointed Prof.Loknath. The State Government
has not adopted UGC Regulations. Therefore, in view of law
laid down in Dalpat Abasaheb, in our considered opinion
interference in appointment by exercise of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was uncalled for. Accordingly point
no. (i) is answered in negative and point no. (ii) is
answered in affirmative.
41. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion,
these appeals merit consideration and hence, the following:
(2021) 8 SCC 347
ORDER
a) Appeals are allowed;
b) Order dated September 12, 2023 passed in W.P.
No.9068/2023 and W.P. No.11875/2023 is
set-aside;
c) W.P. No.9068/2023 and W.P. No.11875/2023 are
dismissed.
No Costs.
Before parting with this judgment, this Court places on
record its deep appreciation for the research and assistance
rendered by its official Research Assistants-cum-Law Clerks,
Ms. Preksha R. Lalwani and Ms. Pooja Umashankar.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
