Karnataka High Court

Ishwar S/O. Devendra Navalagund vs The Rani Channamma University on 25 October, 2025

Author: S G Pandit

Bench: S G Pandit

                                                   -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
                                                         WA No. 100231 of 2024


                       HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                           PRESENT

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
                                             AND
                            THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                           WRIT APPEAL NO. 100231 OF 2024 (S-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      ISHWAR S/O. DEVENDRA NAVALAGUND
                      AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
                      R/O. MEDAR ONI, OLD HUBLI,
                      NEAR NEW ENGLISH SCHOOL,
                      HULBI DIST. DHARWAD.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. S.S. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M          1.    THE RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   R/BY THE REGISTRAR,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.10.29
13:21:30 +0530              VIDYASANGAM, PB, NH-4,
                            BELGAUM, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

                      2.    THE VICE CHANCELLOR
                            RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
                            VIDYASANGAM, PB,
                            NH-4, BELGAUM,
                            TQ. AND DIST. BELGAUM.
                           -2-
                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
                                  WA No. 100231 of 2024


HC-KAR




3.   THE REGISTRAR
     RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
     VIDYASANGAM, PB, NH-4 BELGAUM,
     TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

4.   MRS. MAHESHWARI S. KACHAPUR
     AGE. 30 YEARS,
     R/O. C/O. PRAVEENKUMAR MADANRAO KULKARNI
     PLOT NO. 236, RADHAMBIKA NILAY,
     NGO COLONY, JEVARGI ROAD,
     GULBARGA-585103.
     NOW AT RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY
     VIDYASANGAM PB, NH-4,
     BELGAUM, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED ON 14-02-2024 IN WP NO.84375 OF 2013 ON
THE FILE OF HON BLE SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD BENCH AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
          AND
          THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
                                   -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB
                                          WA No. 100231 of 2024


HC-KAR




                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

High Court Act, 1961 is directed against learned single

judge's order dated 14.02.2024 in W.P.No.84375/2023 (S-

RES) dismissing the prayer of the appellant-petitioner to

quash the corrigendum dated 19.04.2013 issued to original

recruitment Notification dated 03.10.2012 for the

recruitment of the post of teaching staff in the respondent-

University.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.S.S.Biradar for the

appellant through video conference and perused the appeal

papers.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the petitioner-appellant was before this Court

questioning the corrigendum Notification dated 19.04.2013

issued to the Notification dated 03.10.2012 whereunder

applications were invited to fill up the teaching staff for the

respondent-University. Learned counsel would submit that

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

by Corrigendum dated 03.10.2012, for the post of Assistant

Professor in Criminology, the candidates with qualification of

Master degree in Social Work were also permitted to apply.

Learned counsel would submit that the said action of the

respondent-University would amount to changing the rules

of the game midway through the recruitment process. It is

also the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner-

appellant that the degree in social work would not be a

relevant subject for the post of Assistant Professor in

Criminology. It is contended that the learned single judge

failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner-

appellant and the learned single judge by a cryptic order

without assigning any reason rejected the writ petition.

Further, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

by permitting the candidates with Master degree in social

work for the post of Assistant Professors in Criminology, the

candidature of the petitioner-appellant with Master degree

in Criminology and Forensic Science has not been

considered. By permitting the candidates with qualification

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

of Master degree in social work, the chance of selection of

the petitioner-appellant with qualification of Criminology

and Forensic Science has reduced. Thus, learned counsel for

the petitioner-appellant would pray for allowing the writ

petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, we are of

the considered opinion that no ground is made out to

interfere with the learned single judge's order refusing to

interfere with the corrigendum Notification issued by the

respondent-University.

5. Learned single judge on considering the

contentions of the petitioner, at paragraph Nos.4, 6 and 7,

has assigned reasons. Paragraph Nos.4, 6 and 7 reads as

follows.

"4. The settled position of law is that once the process of recruitment is initiated, the Rules for recruitment should not be changed midway so as to either disqualify the persons who were otherwise qualified under the original notification or creating higher

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

educational qualifications so as to disqualify the original entitled applicants.

6. The second argument of the learned counsel is that the University had committed serious illegality in permitting the person with Masters Degree in social work to be appointed as Assistant Professors in criminology is completely irrational. It is submitted that a Masters Degree in Social Work would not be a relevant subject insofar as criminology and criminal justice is concerned and therefore issuance of corrigendum permitting the candidates to apply would be illegal.

7. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the post was one of a Assistant Professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice and the social impact of criminals in a Society with reference to the Criminal Justice System would also be consideration and therefore be a relevant subject. It cannot therefore be said that permitting of candidates with Masters Degree in Social Work would be illegal and cannot be sustained. Consequently, I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the recruitment made and the petition is therefore dismissed."

6. A perusal of the Notification dated 03.10.2012

inviting application for the post of Assistant Professor in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

Criminology as well as corrigendum Notification dated

19.04.2013 permitting candidates with qualification of

Master degree in Social Science to apply for the post of

Assistant Professor would not amount to changing the rules

of the game midway through the recruitment process. It

only enlarges the competition for selection and it would not

alter or change the qualification. Further, whether the

qualification of Masters degree in social work is relevant or

whether it would be a relevant qualification for the post of

Assistant Professor in Criminology is to be decided by the

Recruiting Authority or Appointing Authority. Prescription of

qualification or eligibility criteria is the sole discretion or

privilege of the Appointing authority or Recruiting authority.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.U.Joshi

Vs. Accountant General1, at paragraph No.10 has held as

follows:

"10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts,

(2003)2 SCC 632

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteris and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need of necessitate, Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service."

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner-appellant that the learned single judge has not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14249-DB

HC-KAR

assigned any reason cannot be accepted. The learned single

judge has clearly pointed out the reasons as noted above

for dismissing the writ petition and we concur with the said

reasons. There is no merit in the writ appeal.

9. Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-