Karnataka High Court
Suneetha S vs State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
WP No. 27276 of 2023
C/W WP No. 7427 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 27276 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 7427 OF 2025 (S-RES)
IN WP No. 27276/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHILPASHREE. S. R.
W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR B K
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
Digitally R/AT SHIVALLI, MANDYA TALUK
signed by MANDYA-571401
SUNITHA K S
Location: 2. DARSHAN B N
HIGH COURT
OF S/O NARAYANASWAMY
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
BUSANAHALLI VILLAGE
SUGATUR TALUK
KOLARA-563101
3. GIRISH H C
S/O CHELUVA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
6TH CROSS, HALAHALLI
MANDYA-571401
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
WP No. 27276 of 2023
C/W WP No. 7427 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. DIVYASHREE T P
D/O PUTTARAJU N
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/A KOWDLE, KOPPA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571428
5. ABHILASH GOWDA Y B
S/O BASAVARAJU B
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
YADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
C A KERE HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422
6. ASHWATH G S
S/O SRIKANTE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A GOWDAIAHNA DODDI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571422
7. SURENDRA KUMARA A
S/O ANDANIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
185, SATTHEGALA VILLAGE
PALYA HOBLI
KOLLEGALA TALUK
CHAMARAJA NAGARA DISTRICT-571440
8. CHANDAN H L
S/O LINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6TH CROSS
HALAHALLI
MANDYA-571401
9. RAMESH S M
S/O MAYIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A NO.18, KOTTATHI HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
WP No. 27276 of 2023
C/W WP No. 7427 of 2025
HC-KAR
SIDDAYANA KOPPALU
YALIYURU
MANDYA-571402
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY T P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANDYA UNIVERSITY
M C ROAD
MANDYA-571401
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. MANDYA UNIVERSITY
M C ROAD
MANDYA-571401
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2
SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W
SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
WP No. 27276 of 2023
C/W WP No. 7427 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.
MUM/STAFF/O.S.E/219/2023-24 DATED 14/09/2023 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-R) ISSUED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
ARE CONCERNED AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ii) DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE POSTS FOR WHICH THEY
WERE APPOINTED BY PAYING THE MINIMUM PAY SCALE
PRESCRIBED FOR THE SAID POSTS TILL SAID POSTS WERE
SANCTIONED AND FILLED UP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 2000.
IN WP NO. 7427/2025
BETWEEN:
SUNEETHA S
W/O. RAMESH R, AGE 34 YEARS,
R/O. MADAVADI VILLAGE,
TALAKADU HOBLI,
T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJATH. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES), M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. MANDYA UNIVERSITY,
M.C. ROAD, MANDYA-571401
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
WP No. 27276 of 2023
C/W WP No. 7427 of 2025
HC-KAR
BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W
SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1
SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.09.2023 BEARING NO.
MAM.V.MA/SIBBANDI/HO.GU.NAN/219/2023-24 ISSUED BY
MANDYA UNIVERSITY MARKED AS ANNX-H BY ISSUING A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONER AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN THE MANDYA
UNIVERSITY WITH MINIMUM WAGES AND ALL THE BACK
WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 14.09.2023 vide
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
Annexure - R in W.P.No. 27276 of 2023 and
Annexure - H in W.P.No.7427 of 2025.
2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ
petitions are as follows:
3. It is the case of the petitioners that, the then Mysore
University was having its area of operation over the
colleges situated at Mandya District apart from other
neighbouring districts. Karnataka State Universities
Act, 2000 was amended by the Karnataka State
Universities (Amendment) Act, 2019. As per the said
Amendment Act, Government College, Mandya, was
taken away from the jurisdiction of Mysore University
and declared it as a Mandya University. It was not
affiliating University with territorial jurisdiction
extending over the Government Colleges
(autonomous), Mandya only. By a notification dated
10.10.2022, the Karnataka State Universities Act,
2000 was further amended by Karnataka State
Universities (Amendment) Act, 2022 under which
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
Mandya University was converted to cluster
university.
4. Mandya University started functioning from the
academic year 2019-20. Mandya university was
conducting the undergraduate courses in B.A,
B.Com, B.Sc., etc and was also conducting the PG
courses. To meet the academic and administrative
work of the University, the then Special officer was
appointed the several temporary teaching and non-
teaching staff on a consolidated pay on a temporary
basis from time to time depending on the work load.
5. The State Government issued a communication dated
06.11.2019 directing the Mandya University to stay
the appointment of 15 non-teaching staff out of 40,
without specifying particular names apprehending
termination. Similarly placed petitioners filed a writ
petition in WP No. 52125 of 2019 and WP No. 52710
of 2019 challenging the said communication. This
court, vide order dated 17.08.2020 disposed of the
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
said writ petitions holding that the said
communication issued by Government was in the
nature of only interim order and hence directed the
Government to pass the final order after hearing the
said employees.
6. The petitioners filed a writ appeal in WA No. 454 and
455 of 2020. The writ appeals came to be dismissed.
Government issued a notice to the petitioner and
others to file their objections. Accordingly, the
petitioners filed their objections. The petitioner
continue to work as Junior Assistant. On 24.08.2021,
Government, without hearing the petitioners and
others, passed an order directing the university to
discharge the petitioners and others from their
services. The petitioners aggrieved by the said order,
preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.17320 of 2021.
7. This Court vide order dated 30.06.2023 allowed the
writ petition and set aside the order of discharge of
the petitioners and others therein and directed the
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
respondents to reconsider the matter. Pursuant to
the order passed by this Court in WP No. 17320 of
2021, the University issued a communication dated
14.09.2023 holding that it is not possible to continue
the services of the petitioners and others. Hence, on
these grounds, prays to allow the writ petitions.
8. The University filed a statement of objections
contending that the relief sought by the petitioner is
not maintainable in the eye of law and it is
contended that the appointment order or approval
cannot be made by these respondents without the
prior approval of the third respondent and further
respondents 1 and 2 have to follow the UGC
guidelines and also get the Government approval
regarding the reservation policy. The appointment of
the petitioners at very inception of the establishment
of the respondent University by the then Special
officer was not authorized to appoint either
temporarily or on daily wages or on consolidated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
wages. In the absence of sanction opposed by the
third respondent that too for a term the petitioners
were appointed cannot have a legal right under the
law to seek a direction to the respondent university
to continue their services in their respective posts as
their term is over by 2021, admittedly, which was
extended due to Corona, as per the direction of the
third respondent till 2021 only. Thus, the petitioners
have no valid legal right to question the validity or
otherwise of the order under challenge. Hence, on
these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned Additional Government Advocate.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
similarly placed petitioners have filed the writ
petition in WP No. 11057 of 2024. This Court vide
order dated 28.04.2025 allowed the writ petition in
part and directed the respondent No.3 to continue
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
the services of the petitioners therein instead of
replacing them by out source employees and also
continue to pay the salary to them from the date of
their continuation and this arrangement shall
continue till such time, the respondent No.3 takes
steps for regular recruitment, in which event, the
petitioners shall be given benefit for their service
only insofar as it relates to relaxation of age is
concerned and the continuation of the petitioners in
the respondent No.3 shall be given effect within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order. He submits that the
petitioner is also entitle for the same benefits.
Hence, he prays to dispose of the writ petitions in
terms of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench
in WP No.11057 of 2024.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent University before passing an
impugned order, no personal hearing was provided to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
the petitioner. The impugned order passed by the
University is in violation of principles of natural
justice. Hence on these grounds, he prays to allow
the writ petitions.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the University
submits that the co-ordinate bench of this Court
while disposing the writ petition in W.P.No.17320 of
2021, disposed of on 30.06.2023 did not direct the
University to give an opportunity for personal
hearing. In view of the same, the University has not
provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
He submits that if the court comes to a conclusion
that the impugned order is in violation of principle of
natural justice, liberty be reserved to the university
to pass an appropriate order for providing an
opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to dispose of the writ petitions.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General adopts the
arguments of the learned counsel for the University.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
14. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the Learned counsel for the parties.
15. It is undisputed that the petitioners were appointed
in the respondent University on a temporary basis by
the then Special Officer of the Mandya University.
Some of the similarly placed employees
apprehending that they may be terminated from the
service in WP No. 52125 of 2019 and WP No. 52710
of 2019. The same were disposed of by this court
with a direction to the Government to pass the final
order. The Government issued notice to the
petitioners therein to show cause why their services
should not be terminated. The petitioners therein
filed the objections. The Government Passed an
order dated 24.08.2021 vide Annexure-K. The
petitioners aggrieved by the said order, approached
this Court and filed WP No. 17320 of 2021. This court
vide Order dated 30.06.2023, set aside the order and
directed the respondents to take a decision in the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
matter relating to the petitioners therein within an
outer limit of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the
order.
16. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP No.
17320 of 2021, the respondent University has passed
an impugned order dated 14.09.2023. From the
perusal of the impugned order the university has not
provided any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioners. Thus, the impugned order passed by the
respondent university is in violation of the principle
of natural justice.
17. I would like to place a reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANEKA
GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1978 (2)
SCR 621, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
substantive and procedural laws and action taken
under them will have to pass the test under Article
14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract.
They cannot be divorced from the needs of nation.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would
cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed
must be just, fair and reasonable even though there
is no specific provision to be taken against an
individual, which affects the right of that individual.
The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard
will be implied from the nature of the function to be
performed by the authority. It is thereby conclusively
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that principles of
natural justice are part of Article 14 and procedure
prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
18. The power to terminate the service of the petitioners,
involves civil consequences and therefore, the
procedure contemplated ought to have been followed
by the respondent university. The nature and extent
of adhering to the principles of natural justice
depends upon the facts and circumstances, but at
the same time, it is also well accepted that the
principles of law that principles of natural justice can
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
be read into a provision, unless applicability of such
principles of natural justice is expressly or impliedly
excluded.
19. The court cannot ignore the legislative mandatory
requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before an order is made. As observed
above, the impugned order passed by the respondent
univeristy was in violation of principles of natural
justice. Hence, on these grounds alone, the
impugned order dated 14.09.2023 is liable to be set
aside.
20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petitions are allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 14.09.2023 is hereby
set aside.
iii. Liberty is reserved to the university to pass
appropriate order after providing an
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40035
HC-KAR
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
pass appropriate order in accordance with law
with an outer limit of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv. All the contentions of the parties are kept
open.
v. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, the
interlocutory applications, if any, would not
survive for consideration and they stand
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
CT:KHV
