Karnataka High Court
Vasundhara B vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
WA No. 200269 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200269 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT. VASUNDHARA. B
AGED 52 YEARS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
SCAB LAW COLLEGE,
RAICHUR - 584 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VASUNDHARA B, PARTY IN - PERSON)
AND
Digitally signed
by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA
PLACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 02.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
WA No. 200269 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. TARANATH SHIKSHANA SAMSTHE
RAICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY - 584 101.
6. SMT. PUSHPALATHA G. LIM. M.PHIL
AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O LATE V SATISH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN LAW,
SAITH CHUNILAL AMARCHAND BOHRA,
LAW COLLEGE (SCAB) RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1, R3 &
R4; SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
R5;SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR C. M, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2024 IN
WP.NO.200474 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT
KALABURAGI AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 08.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
WA No. 200269 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.200474/2016
passed on 17.09.2024 wherein the following reliefs are
sought:-
"i. Call for records and set aside the order
dated 17.09.2024 in W.P.No.200474 of
2016 passed by the learned Single Bench of
the Honb'e High Court of Karnataka, at
Kalaburagi and consequently dismiss the
writ petition in;
ii. Pass such other writ, order or dictation in
the interest of justice and equity."
2. The factual matrix of the respondent No.6
before the learned Single Judge while seeking the relief in
the writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing
respondent no.1 to objectively and dispassionately
consider the case of the petitioner for inclusion of her
name in the list teaching staff of the Saith Chunilal
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
Amarchand Bohara (hereinafter referred as 'SCAB') Law
College, Raichur for the benefit of grant-in-aid with effect
from the date on which the said benefit has been extended
to the private respondents and others, pursuant to the
Government Order bearing No. Law 41 KLM 2013 dated
26.08.2015 vide Annexure-J issued by the respondent
No.1 expeditiously and without loss of further time and
etc.,
3. The petitioner in the said writ petition has
contended that on 28.11.2012 the law college being run
by the respondent No.5 was admitted to grant vide
Annexure-C and specific contention was also taken that
petitioner was working in the said institution as a Lecturer,
having been appointed permanently on 02.08.2006.
4. Petitioner was earlier working as a part-time
lecturer since 02.11.2002 and she was appointed to the
permanent post in 2006.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
5. After the college was admitted to grant, an
inspection report was submitted by the authorities
regarding the faculty of the college vide Annexure-F. In
this inspection report, it is affirmed that the petitioner had
been appointed as a part-time lecturer on 02.11.2002 and
she was appointed permanently on 02.08.2006.
6. The petitioner made the challenge appointing
the appellant herein stating that the details of the
respondent No.6 initial stint of working in the college has
been stated as being from 01.09.1999 till 31.08.2004. It is
also stated that she reappeared on 01.12.2012 and has
been working since that date.
7. The learned Single Judge having taken note of
the fact that the petitioner was working as a part-time
lecturer from 02.11.2002 and she was permanently
appointed on 02.08.2006 after respondent No.6 left the
institution in 2004 itself she was working as a permanent
lecturer and also taken note of the fact that respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
No.6, who is appellant herein after left the institution,
worked in the college at Davangere from 01.09.2004 to
31.01.2011 and in another College in Bagalkot from
01.02.2011 to 30.11.2012 so also taken note of the fact
that as on the date of admitting the college to grant on
28.11.2012, respondent No.6 ie., who is the appellant
herein was not in the employment of the particular
college. But admitted the respondent No.6 post to grant
and refused to admit the post that the petitioner was
holding for a salary grant.
8. Having considered the service rendered by the
petitioner in the Writ Petition 2002 and permanent basis
from 2006 and taken note of that respondent No.6 could
not be admitted to a salary grant, since respondent No.6
ie., appellant herein discontinued in the middle of
continuation and reappointed only on 01.12.2022 and the
same was taken note of in paragraph No.11, 12, 13
however in paragraph No.16 by taking into note of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
conduct of the institution directed the respondent No.5 to
pay the same salary to respondent No.6.
9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of
the appellant before this Court is that the learned Single
Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition
and it requires interference of this Court since the same is
erroneous. Though represented earlier through advocate
but the appellant appeared party-in-person by obtaining
the permission from the concerned and mainly contend
that continuity of one broken service record from
01.09.1999 till date has been recognized by both by her
college and also by the Government. The learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that respondent No.6 possessed
only LLB degree and not LLM as required by Law joined
the college. When she joined as a part time lecturer, since
she was not entitled to be a full time faculty as per the
relevant rules. Her date of appointment could not be from
2002 but 02.08.2006 when she joined as full time lecturer
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
after completing LLM in 2005 this means as on the date of
her joining the service she had crossed the cut off age of
35 years since her date of birth is 02.07.1968 as she was
38 years of age.
10. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that Government of Karnataka had issued an order dated
24.12.2009 requiring all candidates desirous of becoming
fulltime law faculty after 11.07.2009 to complete
NET/SLET/PhD. Atleast one of the candidates
recommended for grant-in-aid one Mr. Gopinath K was
barred from being a fulltime security to a full time faculty
since he joined service in 03.08.2009 and it is no longer
part of this SCAB Law College. Hence, atleast one vacancy
continues in this post as on date.
11. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that in the writ petition itself at Annexure-F it was
forthcoming that the Government committee of 7 persons
headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and also
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
consisting of the Joint Director submitted a verification
report to the Commissioner of collegiate education.
Service of the appellant is reckoned from 01.09.1999 and
the service of hers is reckoned from 02.08.2006 and not
2002.
12. The learned Single Judge failed to take note of
all these factors into consideration. The party-in-person
also filed written argument before this Court reiterating
the grounds urged in the appeal memo and would contend
that when the respondent No.6 ie., petitioner in the writ
petition was not having the prescribed qualification.
Learned Single Judge ought not to have taken note of the
said fact into consideration and also produced copy of
document No.1 wherein an information is given that the
petitioner in the writ petition discontinued her service from
01.03.2016 and also relies upon the judgment of State of
Karnataka and Umadevi and others and brought to the
notice of this Court that there cannot be any illegal
appointment and the learned Single Judge failed to take
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5754-DB
HC-KAR
note of the said fact into consideration and erroneously
comes to the conclusion that the appointment of the
appellant is illegal and the very approach of the learned
Single Judge is erroneous.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
NB,SHS
CT:NI
