Karnataka High Court
Dr C S Ananda vs Dr H Vishwanath on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1621 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. C.S. ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MYSORE- 570 006
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P S RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL,
SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR H VISHWANATH
Digitally signed by SON OF SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
MADHUSHREE H AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Location: High REGISTRAR EVALUATION
Court of Karnataka
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560001
3. THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND THE
CHANCELLOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERISTY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
4. THE KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA STAE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MANASAGANGOTHRI UNIVERSITY
MYSORE 570006
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(NOC)
SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2;
SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO PLEASED TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 19.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE,
IN WP No. 14899/2025 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2025,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
WA No. 1621 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the
judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed in
W.P.No.6924/2022 filed by respondent No.4 herein.
2. For the convenience, parties are referred to as per
their status in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner is master's in Kannada Literature and
he is a Ph.D. holder in Kannada. Several books published are to
his credits and he is also said to be recipient of State and
National awards. The petitioner was appointed as Principal of
S.G. Ramappa P.U. College, Gandhinagar, Devanagere.
Thereafter, he was promoted as Professor under the Career
Advancement Scheme by an order dated 19.04.2025. The
petitioner was appointed as Registrar Evaluation in the
Karnataka State Open University by the Chancellor, vide the
order dated 02.03.2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
4. The petitioner has been repatriated to his post of
Professor, by order dated 19.05.2025, and this Order was the
subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The respondent
no. 4 who is appellant herein was appointed as Registrar
Evaluation in the third respondent's University, vide order
dated 19.05.2025. The petitioner in the writ petition stated that
the petitioner was wrongly removed from the post of Registrar
Evaluation in third respondent university without any prior
notice or intimation and wrongly repatriated to the post of
Professor in the Davanagere University.
5. It is further submitted that the Minister of Higher
Education had recommended that the petitioner should
continue, as he had completed only one year, but this advice of
the Education Minister was ignored and impugned order came
to be issued appointing the respondent no. 2 as the Registrar
Evaluation and repatriating the petitioner to the post of
Professor in Davanagere University.
6. It is further submitted that the repatriation of the
petitioner to the post of Professor in the University of
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
Davanagere, Department of Kannada was also against the
transfer guidelines of the State Government.
7. In the entire writ petition, there is nothing to
suggest that the respondent no. 4 who is appellant herein, his
appointment was challenged on the ground that petitioner had
challenged the appointment of the appellant/respondent No.4
on the ground that he was not qualified.
8. The only contention which was raised by the
petitioner before the learned Single Judge in writ petition was
that his repatriation was against the advice rendered by the
Education Minister and without having issued any notice or
prior intimation to him, he was repatriated to his post of
Professor, Department of Kannada, University of Davanagere.
9. In the light of the aforesaid averments stated
briefly above, the following prayers were made:
(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other
appropriate Writ or Order or Direction quashing the
impugned Notification dated 19/05/2025 bearing
No.GS 07 KOM 2025 issued by the 2nd respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
thereby appointing Respondent No.4 herein to the Post
of the Registrar Evaluation of 3rd respondent
University, in place of the petitioner vide Annexure-'A'
in the interest of justice and equity.
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other
appropriate Writ or Order or Direction directing the 2nd
respondent to continue the services of the petitioner in
the post of the Registrar Evaluation of Karnataka State
Open University, in the interest of justice and equity.
(iii) Issue such other Writ or Order or Direction as
deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
10. It is not in dispute that Section 13 of the Karnataka
State Open University Act, 1992 and Clause 5 of the II
Schedule attached to the Act provide for the appointment of
Registrar of Examination, which reads as under:
"5. The Registrar of Examination
(1) The Registrar of examination shall be
appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
Vice-Chancellor and the State Government and he
shall be a whole time salaried officer of the
University.
(2) The emoluments and other conditions of
service of the Registrar of examination shall be
prescribed by the Ordinances.
11. From the reading of Clause 5 of the IInd Schedule
to the Karnataka State Open University Act, it can be seen that
there is no fixed tenure attached to the post of Registrar of
Examination in the Karnataka State Open University . There is
no open selection to the post of Registrar of Examination and
the appointing authority/Chancellor has power of appointing
any qualified person to the post of Registrar of Examination in
the Karnataka State Open University. When the appointment of
the Registrar of examination is under the pleasure doctrine, he
can be also be removed or repatriated on the pleasure of the
appointing authority. If we consider the order of repatriation of
the petitioner, it does not assign reason, and therefore, it
cannot be said that the order is stigmatic. It is not by way of
punishment but only in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure, he
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
has been repatriated after completion of one year from the post
of Registrar Evaluation in the third respondent University.
12. Another learned Single Judge in the similar facts
and circumstances of the case vide judgment and order dated
19.06.2017 in Writ Petition No.24645/2017 in the case of
Dr. R. Rajanna -vs- State of Karnataka, wherein considering
similar provision of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000,
held that the post of Registrar is neither a fixed tenure nor the
petitioner could possibly claim any vested right to continue on
the post of the Registrar of the Respondent-University. It
would be the discretion of the State Government to appoint any
of the eligible persons as Registrar, and merely because after a
short period of about six months or so, the State Government
had chosen to appoint another Registrar in place of the
petitioner, in that case, appointment of another person would
not become invalid or illegal.
13. Thus, it has been held that when there is no fixed
tenure and the appointing authority has discretion to appoint
any person without any selection who is qualified to the post of
Registrar Evaluation which does not have any fixed tenure, the
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
State Government or the appointing authority, as the case may
be, would be entitled to cut short the tenure and appoint any
other person.
14. In the present case also there is no fixed tenure for
the post of Registrar Evaluation. The appointing authority, the
Chancellor has discretion to appoint any qualified person to the
post, and if the appointing authority has appointed any other
person, that is the respondent no. 4, who is appellant herein,
after one year of appointment of the petitioner, the said
decision of the appointing authority cannot be challenged. The
petitioner does not have any vested right to continue on the
post. If the appointing authority takes a decision not to
continue him, inasmuch as there is no fixed tenure assigned in
the appointment letter of the petitioner to the post of
Registrar's Evaluation, the said decision of the appointing
authority cannot be said to be illegal. The petitioner has not
been able to show his right in law to continue to hold the post
of Registrar evaluation in the respondent's University.
15. Thus, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge is unsustainable
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43589-DB
HC-KAR
and the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue on the post of
Registrar Evaluation, if the appointing authority has chosen to
appoint the respondent no. 4 in his place. Therefore, we set
aside the impugned judgment and order in view of the afore-
stated discussion.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed.
Pending applications stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
HR
