[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr.Smt.Mahadevi R Hiremath vs The Vice Chancellor on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
WP No. 116947 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103627 of 2017
WP No. 130840 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 116947 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103627 OF 2017 (S-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 130840 OF 2020 (EDN-RES)
IN WP No. 116947/2019:
BETWEEN:
DR. SMT. MAHADEVI R. HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT: 52 YEARS,
OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
(HOD) DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA STUDIES,
KARNATAKA ARTS COLLEGE, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI
DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580008.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.02.20
11:36:28 +0530
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
05/11/2019, 30/11/2019, 12/12/2019 AND TAKE ACTION KEEPING
IN VIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE
ANNEXURE-D DATED 01/1/2019 AND REALLOT THE STUDENTS WHO
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
WP No. 116947 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103627 of 2017
WP No. 130840 of 2020
HC-KAR
WERE EARLIER ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER AND THE COPIES OF
THE SAME ARE PRODUCED AS AT ANNEXURE-E-E5 RESPECTIVELY IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 103627/2017:
BETWEEN:
DR. (SMT). MAHADEVI R HIREMATH
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT (HOD),
KANNADA DEPARTMENT,
KARNTAKA ARTS COLLEGE, DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUHAS K.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNTAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAWATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNTAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAWATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
3. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAWATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
4. THE CHAIRMAN,
DR.R.C.HIREMATH KANNADA STUDIES,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAWATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
5. THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY STAFF AND STUDENTS
GREVANCES REDRESSAL COMMITTEE,
(STUDENT WELFARE SECTION),
PAWATE NAGAR, DHARWAD.
6. SMT. B S GANGNALLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
GOVT. FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
WP No. 116947 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103627 of 2017
WP No. 130840 of 2020
HC-KAR
MUDDEBIHAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED PUBLICATION DATED 01.03.2017 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.KAVI/VM/PH.D/KSG/160/2016-17/153
DATED 01.03.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND THE IMPUGNED
FINAL REPORT DATED 03.04.2017 BEARING NO.KU/DSW/2016-
17 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AS PER ANNEXURE-
L; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO WITHDRAW THE
CONVOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 AWARDING DOCTORAL DEGREE (PH.D)
PERTAINING TO THE RESEARCH WORK IN KANNADA SUBJECT
HAVING THE TITLE OF THESIS AS "KANNADA EKOTTARA
SHATASTHALAGALU"; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 130840/2020:
BETWEEN:
DR. SMT. MAHADEVI R. HIREMATH
AGED 51 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF KANNADA STUDIES,
KARNATAKA ARTS COLLEGE,
DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATENAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
2. THE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATENAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
WP No. 116947 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103627 of 2017
WP No. 130840 of 2020
HC-KAR
3. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATENAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
4. THE DEAN FACULTY OF
ARTS KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATENAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
5. THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATENAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS REALTING TO CONCERNING AND CONNECTED
WITH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.01.2020 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G BEARING NO.KU/ACA/PG/PH.D/KSG/2019-20/3421
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PERUSE THE SAME AND
QUASH THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 04.01.2020 AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED INTERALIA TO THE
RESOLUTION DATED 17.08.2019 AS COMMUNICATED VIDE
ANNEXURE-C DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE ALL THE
RESEARCH STUDENTS NAMED IN HER REPRESENTATIONS
DATED 28.10.2019, 28.11.2019,05.11.2019 AND 05.12.2019
AND 09.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURRE-E-E4 RESPECTIVELY; ISSUE
A FURTHER DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MANDAMUS TO
ALLOT TO THE PETITIONER FRESH RESEARCH STUDENTS ALSO
FOR BEING GUIDED BY HER FOR THE DOCTORAL DEGREE OF
THE UNIVERSITY IN THE KANNADA FACULTY; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
WP No. 116947 of 2019
C/W WP No. 103627 of 2017
WP No. 130840 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. All these writ petitions are taken up together for
consideration, as common questions of fact and law
are involved, and they are disposed of by this
common order.
2. The petitioner, an Associate Professor and a
recognized Ph.D. Research Guide under Karnataka
University, has filed the above writ petitions
challenging,
(i) The conferment of Ph.D. degree on
respondent No.6;
(ii) The inaction of the University in
restoring research scholars to her
guideship after she was exonerated in
disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) The communication dated 04.01.2020
whereby the University declined to
re-allot her earlier research scholars.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. The petitioner was a recognized Ph.D. guide in
the Department of Kannada Studies.
3.2. Respondent No.6 had registered under her
guideship and submitted the thesis on
28.04.2015. Subsequently, respondent No.6
lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner
had demanded a sum of ₹2,00,000/-. The
matter was referred to the 'Students' Grievance
Redressal Committee.'
3.3. While the complaint proceedings were pending,
the University proceeded to evaluate the thesis
and conferred the Ph.D. degree upon
respondent No.6 on 03.07.2017.
3.4. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner. Pursuant to
directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ
petition, a retired District Judge was appointed
as Enquiry Officer, who conducted an enquiry
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
and submitted a report, exonerating the
petitioner of the charges.
3.5. The said report was accepted by the Syndicate
by resolution dated 17.08.2019, and the
petitioner was restored as a Research Guide.
3.6. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several
representations seeking re-allotment of
research scholars who had been withdrawn
from her guideship during the pendency of the
disciplinary proceedings.
3.7. By communication dated 04.01.2020, the
University declined the request for restoration,
stating that the concerned students were
unwilling to return to her guideship and that
some of them had already completed their
research.
3.8. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this
Court in W.P. No.116947/2019 and W.P.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
No.130840/2020 seeking re-allotment and
consequential reliefs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
conferment of Ph.D. degree on respondent No.6
during the pendency of the complaint was illegal and
the University acted arbitrarily contrary to the Ph.D.
Regulations. It is contended that, once the petitioner
has been exonerated, the allegations stand disproved
and restoration of guideship must necessarily include
consequential restoration of the earlier research
scholars. It is further argued that the communication
dated 04.01.2020 is arbitrary and non-speaking.
Learned counsel also submits that the denial of
restoration adversely affects the petitioner's
academic promotions and benefits under the Career
Advancement Scheme.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - University submits that the Ph.D.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
degree was conferred by the competent authority, in
exercise of its statutory powers and that the
academic decisions cannot be interfered with unless
mala fides are established. Restoration of guideship
does not automatically confer a right to re-allot
specific research scholars and submits that the
willingness of the students is a relevant
consideration, and the impugned communication
reflects due consideration of these aspects, which
warrants no interference.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
7. The conferment of a doctoral degree is an academic
function exercised by the Syndicate under the
statutory framework. It is undisputed that the
petitioner was subsequently exonerated and restored
as a Research Guide. Such restoration operates
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
prospectively and reinstates her eligibility to guide
research scholars.
8. There is no statutory provision mandating automatic
re-allotment of specific research scholars upon
restoration of guideship. Supervision of research
involves academic discretion, institutional regulation,
and the consent of the concerned students. The
communication dated 04.01.2020 indicates that the
University considered the petitioner's representation
and declined re-allotment on the ground that the
students were unwilling to return to guideship of the
petitioner and some of them had already concluded
their research.
9. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right over the
guideship of students who had concluded their
research during the pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings. Once re-allotment had been made and
academic process had progressed, the petitioner
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2474
HC-KAR
cannot, as a matter of right, seek restoration of the
same students.
10. The writ petitions lack merits and the communication
dated 04.01.2020 is in accordance with law which
warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly,
this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition No.116947 of 2019 is
dismissed as having become infructuous
in view of the communication dated
04.01.2020.
ii. Writ Petition Nos.103627 of 2017 and
130840 of 2020 are hereby dismissed as
devoid of merit.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
gab
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
