Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vijayalakshmi M Tiralapur vs The Government Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 13.02.2025
Pronounced on : 20.02.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.104881 OF 2024 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI M.TIRALAPUR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
OCC: REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
HAVERI UNIVERSITY
KERIMATTIHALLI
HAVERI - 581 110.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Digitally signed by (UNIVERSITY 2), M.S.BUILDING
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Dharwad
2. HAVERI UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
KERIMATHALLI
HAVERI - 581 110.
2
3. DR. RENUKA METI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: PROFESSOR
R/O DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PROCESSING
AND NUTRITION, KARNATAKA STATE
AKKAMAHADEVI WOMEN UNIVERSITY
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2025.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP
SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE AND
SRI SUNIL BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER/NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ED/131/UDV/2024
(4) DATED 14/08/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a
notification dated 14.08.2024, by which the petitioner is transferred
and relieved from the duties of Registrar (Evaluation) of the second
respondent - Haveri University (hereinafter referred to as 'the
University' for short) and in place, recommending the third
respondent to the post of Registrar (Evaluation).
2. Heard Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri
Ramachandra A. Mali and Sri Sunil Bhat, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 and Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Sans details, facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner is said to be a renowned academician; claims
to have experience of more than 3 decades from 1992 and is said
to be qualified with M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D. Owing to the
qualification and experience of the petitioner and on the basis of
her achievements, the first respondent - State appoints the
petitioner as Registrar (Evaluation) of Akkamahadevi Women's
University, Vijayapura in terms of its order dated 16.03.2024. The
person holding the post of the Registrar (Evaluation) is repatriated
to the parent University. The repatriation is called in question by
the concerned in W.P.No.8331/2024, before the principle bench of
this Court, which is said to have granted an interim order on
18.03.2024. During the pendency of the said petition, the first
respondent transfers the petitioner from the present post and
directs joining to the parent department / college. Being aggrieved
by the aforesaid notification dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner is
before the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the petitioner is most qualified to hold the post of
Registrar (Evaluation) of the second respondent, a newly formed
University. It is his contention that the petitioner has 30 years of
experience in several cadres. Looking at the qualification and the
experience the petitioner possessed, she is appointed as the
Registrar (Evaluation) and further transferred to Akkamahadevi
Women's University, Vijayapura as Registrar (Evaluation). The
impugned notification thus, is contrary to law is the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the second
respondent and the third respondent in unison would submit that
the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Registrar
(Evaluation), on a plain and simple reading of Section 18 of the
Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' for short). It is their submission that a person who is an
Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service or a senior member
of faculty of any University or a senior member of faculty of any
University could become the Registrar (Evaluation). The petitioner
is not admittedly a senior member of faculty of any University and
places reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench rendered
in W.P.No.8413/2024 disposed on 18.06.2024, which interprets
the very provision.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the
lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
In all, the respondents would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The factum of
career of the petitioner is a matter of record, it need not be
reiterated. The petitioner is appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation)
of the University and is posted to Akkamahadevi Women's
University, Vijayapura, as the Registrar (Evaluation). The
notification dated 16.03.2024, reads as follows:
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
E-PÀbÉÃj ¸ÀASÉå: Er/02/JA««/2023 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ
§ºÀĪÀĺÀr PÀlÖqÀ
¨ ÉAUÀ¼Æ
À gÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.03.2024
ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆ
. ಜಯಲ ಎಂ. ಾ ಪ ರ, ಕುಲಸ ವರು ( ೌಲ ಾವನ) "ಾ#ೇ%
ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ, "ಾ#ೇ% (ಮುಖ ಸ+ರು ಅಂUÀè ,ಾಗ, ಮ.ಾoÀ ಮಂಡಳ ಕ ಾ ಮತು2 #ಾ3ಜ
ಮ"ಾ (ಾ ಲಯ, 4ಾ ಾಪ ರ, 5ೆಳ6ಾ ), ಇವರನು8 "ೆ9. . ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï,
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ ( ೌಲ ಾವನ) CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉë ªÀÄ»¼Á ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ, ಜಯಪ ರ ಇವರ
ಸ+ಳ;ೆ< ಕ ಾ ಟಕ .ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯಗಳ ಅ >ಯಮ, 2000ರ 18 ೇ ಪ ಕರಣದ (1) ೇ ಉಪ
ಪ ಕರಣದB ಪ ದvÀÛ#ಾದ ಅ ;ಾರ ಚ ಾCD, Eಾವ ಜ>ಕ "ಾಗೂ ಆಡGHಾIತಕ JತದೃLMCಂದ
vÀNಣOಂದ Pಾ%6ೆ ಬರುವಂHೆ "ಾಗೂ ಮುಂOನ ಆ(ೇಶದವ.ೆ6ೆ ೇRD ಆ(ೇSD(ೆ.
. "ೆ9. ಎಂ. ಚಂದ TೇಖU, ಇವರನು8 ಅವರು ಮೂಲತಃ WಾರXೆ ಾBರುವ
Yೖಸೂರು ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯದ [ಾ Wಾ ಪಕರು ವೃಂದದ ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ JಂOರು^ಸ ಾ^(ೆ.
. ಜಯಲ , ಎಂ. ಾ ಪ ರ, ಇವರ ಅಕ<ಮ"ಾ(ೇ ಮJ`ಾ ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯದ
ಕುಲಸ ವರು ( ೌಲ ಾವನು ಹು(ೆ]ಯ ೇಮ;ಾ 6ೆ ಸಂಬಂ Dದ Eೇ#ಾ ಷರತು2 ಮತು2
>ಬಂಧ ೆಗಳನು8 ನಂತರದcd "ೊರBಸ ಾಗುವ ದು.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ
ಅfಾನುEಾರ
ಮತು2 ಅವರ "ೆಸ%ನcd
¸À»/-
(±À²PÀ¯Á ¹.)
ಸ;ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ;ಾಯ ದS
ಉನ8ತ SNಣ
ಇ ಾ4ೆ ( ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ-1)."
(Emphasis added)
On 14.08.2024, comes the impugned notification by which,
the petitioner is transferred and sought to be posted to the parent
University on the score that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the
post of the Registrar (Evaluation) in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
The notification reads as follows:
"¸ÀASÉå: Er 131 AiÀÄÄr« 2024(4) ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಸ;ಾ ರದ ಸ #ಾಲಯ
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ
5ೆಂಗಳgರು, O ಾಂಕ: 14-08-2024
ಅ ಸೂಚ ೆ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ .ಾಜ ದcdನ ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯಗಳcdನ ರhEಾMU ೌಲ ಾಪನ ಹು(ೆ]ಯು
ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯದ ಪiಣ ;ಾcಕ ಅ ;ಾ%jಾ^ದು], ರhEಾMU ೌಲ ಾಪನ ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ
.ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾ >ಲಯಗಳ ಅ >ಯಮ 2000ರ ಪ ಕರಣ 18(1) ರನ'ಯ ಸಮೂಹ-ಎ J%ಯ
Tೆ ೕXೆಯ ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಆಡGತ Eೇ#ೆ6ೆ Eೇ%ದ ಒಬl ಅ ;ಾ%ಯನು8 ಅಥ#ಾ jಾವ (ೇ
ಶ' (ಾ >ಲಯದ #ಾ ಸಂಗ ,ಾಗದ ಒnಬ J%ಯ ಸದಸ ನನು8 .ಾಜ ಸ;ಾ ರವ ೇಮಕ
ಾಡಲು ಅವ;ಾಶ ದು], ಅದರಂHೆ ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅ ;ಾ%ಯನು8 ಈ Jಂ(ೆ ೇಮಕ ಾಡ ಾ^ತು2.
ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅ ;ಾ%ಯು ಕ ಾ ಟಕ .ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾ >ಲಯಗಳ ಅ >ಯಮ-2000
ಪ ಕರಣ 18(1) ರನ'ಯ ಶ' (ಾ >ಲಯದ #ಾ ಸಂಗ ,ಾಗದ ಒಬl J%ಯ ಸದಸ ಾ^ಲd(ೇ
ಇರುವ ;ಾರಣ ಪ ಸು2ತ ಸದ%ಯವರುಗಳ Eೇ#ೆಯನು8 ಅವರ ಾತೃ ಇ ಾ4ೆ/;ಾ ೇಜುಗG6ೆ
ತNಣOಂದ Pಾ%6ೆ ಬರುವಂHೆ Jಂ ರು^D ಆ(ೇSD(ೆ.
ಈ ಅ ;ಾ%ಯು ಕೂಡ ೇ ಪ ಸು2ತ ಕತ ವ >ವ Jಸು 2ರುವ ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ
Eೇ#ೆCಂದ pಡುಗqೆ "ೊಂO ಅವ%6ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟM ಾತೃ ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ/;ಾ ೇhನcd ವರO
ಾB;ೊಂಡು ಸ;ಾ ರ;ೆ< ಾJ ಒದ^ಸುವಂHೆ ಸೂ D(ೆ.
PÀæ.¸ÀA ೇಮಕ ಾಡ ಾದ ೇಮಕ6ೊಂಡವರ "ೆಸರು ೇಮಕ ಾಡ ಾದ
ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ ಮತು2 "ಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಹು(ೆ] ಸ;ಾ ರದ ಅOಸೂಚ ೆ
ಹು(ೆ] ಸಂ4ೆ & O ಾಂಕ
1 "ಾ#ೇ% ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ . ಜಯಲ ಾ ಪ ರ, Er 48 AiÀÄÄ©© 2023,
ಕುಲಸ ವರು ಮುಖ ಸ+ರು, ಆಂಗd ,ಾಗ, O ಾಂಕ: 28-03-2023.
( ೌಲ ಾಪನ) ಮ.ಾಠ ಮಂಡಳ ಕ ಾ ಮತು2
#ಾ3ಜ ಮ"ಾ (ಾ ಲಯ,
4ಾ ಾಪ ರ, 5ೆಳ6ಾ .
ಸ;ಾ ರವ ಕುಲಸ ವ ( ೌಲ ಾಪನ) ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ ೇಮಕ ಾಡುವವ.ೆ6ೆ
>ಯ ಾನುEಾರ ಕುಲಪ ಗಳ ಹಂತದcd ಅಹ ವ t2ಯನು8 ಪ ,ಾರದcd%ಸಲು ಕ ಮವJಸುವ ದು.
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ .ಾಜ [ಾಲರ ಆfಾನುEಾರ
ಮತು2 ಅವರ "ೆಸ%ನcd
ಸJ/-
14.08.2024
(;ೆ.ಮಂಜು ಾಥ)
'ಸ;ಾ ರದ ಅ ೕನ ;ಾಯ ದS
ಉನ8ತ SNಣ ಇ ಾ4ೆ ( ಶ' (ಾ ಲಯ-2)."
(Emphasis added)
In the light of the fact that the petitioner is nonsuited to hold
the post of Registrar (Evaluation) on the score that she is not
eligible in terms of Section 18 of the Act, it becomes germane to
notice Section 18 of the Act. It reads as follows:
"18. The Registrar (Evaluation).--(1) The
Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time officer of
the University. The State Government may appoint an
officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, not
below the rank of Group-A Senior Scale or a senior
member of Faculty of any University to be the
Registrar (Evaluation) of a University:
Provided that where no such person is available then
the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be appointed by the Vice
Chancellor with the approval of the Syndicate from out of a
penal of not less than three persons recommended by the
Vice Chancellor. If none of the persons in the penal is
approved by the Syndicate within the time prescribed by the
Statutes, the Chancellor may, in consultation with the Vice
Chancellor appoint such other person as he deems fit to be
the Registrar (Evaluation) The terms and conditions of
service and emoluments of the Registrar (Evaluation) so
appointed shall be such as may be determined by the
Chancellor.
(2) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a Member of
the Syndicate, the Academic Council, Finance Committee and
all the Faculties.
(3) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be incharge of the
conduct of examinations and all other matters incidental
thereto and ancillary therewith and shall perform such other
duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes or Ordinances,
or as may be allocated to him by the Vice-Chancellor.
(4) The Registrar (Evaluation) may be assisted by one
or more Deputy Registrars (Evaluation) and Assistant
Registrars (Evaluation)."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 18 deals with Registrar (Evaluation). A person to
hold the said post, should be a whole time officer of the University;
the State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka
Administrative Service not below the rank of Group 'A' senior scale
as Registrar (Evaluation) or any senior member of the faculty of
any University can also be appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation).
9. The issue in the lis revolves around the interpretation of
Section 18 of the Act. The interpretation of Section 18 of the Act
need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as
the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.8413/2024 supra has
interpreted Section 18 of the Act to mean that a faculty of any
University and not a faculty in any constituent or affiliated college.
"..... .... ....
15. The Vice Chancellor, in response to the
communication for his opinion on whether the third
respondent, the Chairman of a Department of Studies
could be considered a Senior Member of a Faculty of
the university, has opined that the Chairman of a
Department of Studies is appointed for a period of two
years on rotation; that the third respondent is
appointed as the Chairman of the Department of
Organic Chemistry because the post of Professor is not
occupied; that the third respondent, who is promoted
with effect from 06.10.2022 as Associate Professor
and appointed as the Chairman of the Department of
Organic Chemistry, cannot be considered as a senior
faculty member.
16. This file in No. 6814677/2023 is closed on
29.02.2024 [as could be seen from Note No.33] but is
reopened again on 13.03.2024 with a note from the Hon'ble
Chief Minister and concluding in the observation that the
outcome must await the decision in another file which is a
reference to the file in No.6910890/2023. This file
commences with the Note from the Hon'ble Chief Minister for
transfer and appointment of certain third parties to the
Animal Husbandry Universities, and with the Hon'ble Chief
Minister putting up another note [as stated by Mr.Reuben
Jacob on 04.03.2023] the petitioner's replacement with the
third respondent is considered as part of the decision to
appoint the aforesaid as high functionaries of Bangalore
University and it is ultimately done on 15.03.2024.
17. These circumstances will have to be examined to
ascertain whether the first respondent's impugned order,
which admittedly is in exercise of powers under the doctrine
of pleasure, is in public or administrative interest. In view of
the opinion rendered by the Vice Chancellor, the
circumstances in which the file is closed and reopened to
await the decision in another file, and ultimately leading to
replacement of the petitioner with the appointment of the
third respondent just on the eve of the Election Code of
Conduct regime, this Court must opine that neither public
interest nor administrative interest is established, and if the
impugned notification fails, on this score there must be
judicial intervention or otherwise the Universities'
institutional autonomy could be in jeopardy. The first
question is answered accordingly.
18. The next question must be examined in the light of
the provisions of Section 18[1] and 34[9] of the Act, and
these provisions read as under:
Section 18[1]:
"18. The Registrar [Evaluation]- [1] The Registrar
[Evaluation] shall be a whole time officer of the
University. The State Government may appoint
an officer of the Karnataka Administrative
Service, not below the rank of Group-A Senior
Scale or a senior member of Faculty of any
University to be the Registrar [Evaluation] of a
University:
Provided that where no such person is available then
the Registrar [Evaluation] shall be appointed by the
Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Syndicate
from out of a penal of not less than three persons
recommended by the Vice Chancellor. If none of the
persons in the panel is approved by the Syndicate
within the time prescribed by the Statutes, the
Chancellor may, in consultation with the Vice
Chancellor appoint such other person as he deems fit
to be the Registrar [Evaluation]. The terms and
conditions of service and emoluments of the
Registrar [Evaluation] so appointed shall be such as
may be determined by the Chancellor.
Section 34[9]:
"34[9] Each Faculty shall consist of the following members,
namely:-
[i] the Dean of the Faculty;
[ii] the Registrar [Evaluation];
[iii] the Chairman of the Department of Studies in
the Faculty;
[iv] all the Professors and in the absence of
Professors, Readers in the Faculty from each
Department in the Faculty;
[v] one Reader and one Lecturer in each Department
of Studies nominated by the Vice-Chancellor by
rotation in the order of seniority for a term of two
years;
[vi] five Teachers of colleges and two experts from
other Universities in the State nominated by the
Vice-Chancellor for a term of two years; and
[vii] such other persons as may be specified by the
Statutes."
The crucial expression in Section 18[1] of the Act is a Senior
Member of Faculty of any University, and if a person could be
recognized a senior member of a faculty of any university,
such person would be eligible for appointment.
19. The expression a Senior Member of Faculty of
any University is not defined specifically, nor anything
is mentioned to indicate in Section 18 of the who, for
the purposes of appointment as the Registrar
[Evaluation], will be a Senior Member of Faculty.
However, the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, while
stipulating that a University shall have Faculties,
stipulate that faculties shall consist of Department of
Studies and the composition of the Department of
Studies with a Chairman. As regards the composition
of a faculty, the provisions of Section 34[9] of the Act
mandate that it shall, apart from the Dean of Faculty
and Registrar [Evaluation] and the Chairman of the
Department of Studies in the Faculty, comprise of
Professors, a Reader and a Lecturer in each
Department."
20. This Court in the light of afore provisions
must opine that the Chairman of the Department of
Studies in a Faculty of university will be a senior
member of faculty as contemplated under Section
18[1] of the Act, and the Act does not admit any
ambiguity. The question for the present purposes is,
whether the third respondent could be called a senior
member of the faculty only because he is appointed as the
Chairman of the department of Organic Chemistry.
21. The Government should have necessarily
examined this question in the light of Vice Chancellor's
opinion that the third respondent's appointment as the
Chairman of the Department of Studies would not have
come about if there was a professor in the department
of Organic Chemistry. If the petitioner fortuitously
comes to occupy the position, this Court must say that
it cannot by itself confer eligibility. The Government
should have considered all aspects before displacing
the petitioner with the third respondent's
appointment. Therefore, the second question is
answered holding that the third respondent could not
have been eligible to be appointment as the Registrar
[evaluation] only because he is appointed as the
Chairman of the Department of Organic Chemistry."
(Emphasis supplied)
The petitioner therein was the Chairman of the Department of
Studies of the University. He was held to be fitting into the
definition of senior member of the faculty as obtaining under
Section 18(1) of the Act, as he was the Chairman of the
Department of Studies in the University.
10. On the afore-quoted interpretation, the case of the
petitioner requires to be considered. The petitioner has been a
faculty in Marata Mandal Arts and Commerce Degree and M.Com,
MSC, PG Center, Belagavi; NAD Nodal Officer; Vice Chairman In-
charge; Registrar (Admin) In-charge and Finance Officer In-charge
of the University. On a pointed query, as to whether the petitioner
was a senior faculty in any University, the answer is 'No'. The
petitioner has been a senior faculty in one of the constituent
colleges or an affiliated college, and not in any University. It is
therefore, on a plain reading of the interpretation of Section 18 of
the Act as rendered by the co-ordinate bench in
W.P.No.8413/2024 supra, it can without any contradiction be
opined that the petitioner does not fit into the definition of senior
faculty of any University.
11. On such interpretation of Section 18 of the Act and
ineligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Registrar
(Evaluation), the impugned notification dated 14.08.2024, would
not require any interference.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
term itself would get over by the end of May, 2025 and the
petitioner should be permitted to be continued till then. The
submission is sans countenance, as, if a person is ineligible to hold
the post, this Court by its order cannot direct the said person to
continue and complete the tenure, despite the fact of ostensible
ineligibility.
13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves
to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected.
The interim order granted earlier, if any, stands dissolved.
______SD/-___________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
nvj
CT:SS
