1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 205808 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN SALAUDDIN S/O RASULASMIYA AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: SDA IN KSAW UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAPUR R/O: C/O SYED USMAN H.NO. 5-992/26-C/1 NEAR NASHIMAN SCHOOL, YADULLA COLONY KALABURAGI-585 104. NOW AT C/O WAJID PATEL PSI, GANDHI CHOWK POLICE STATION PSI QUARTERS, VIJAYAPURA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR THE KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI 2 WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, TORVI ROAD VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 3. THE REGISTRAR THE KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, TORVI ROAD VIJAYAPURA-586 101. 4. MRS. RAJESHARI B. BADANUR AGE: NOT KNOWN OCC: ASSISTANT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL, FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY PB NO.06, MB NAGAR, BIDAR-585 401. 5. MR. SUVINKUMAR CHANDRASHEKAR MAMADI AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: NOT KNOWN H.NO. 04-601/24/130, MT NAGAR NEW LAYOUT, KALABURAGI-585101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. P. VILASKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-F, VIZ, THE LIST OF CANDIDATES NOT ELGIBLE FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE, IN SO FAR AS IT HAS HELD AT SL.NO.8 THAT THE PETITIONER IS INELIGIBLE FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR AND ETC. 3 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.12.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) In the captioned petition, petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Registrar. 2. The primary objection raised by the petitioner in the captioned petition is that respondent No.4 does not possess requisite experience and she having worked as a Stenographer has no administrative experience and therefore, lacks eligibility criteria while petitioner claims that he has worked as a Second Division Assistant in respondent No.2/University and therefore, has administrative experience and possess requisite eligibility to be considered to the post of Assistant Registrar. Petitioner has also attributed 4 malafides. Petitioner also contends that respondent No.4 has worked only for a period of 6 years 4 months as against minimum requirement of eight years. 3. Per contra, respondents 2 and 3 while refuting the averments made in the writ petition have claimed that respondent No.4 is fully qualified and is eligible to be considered to the post of Assistant Registrar. Respondents have further claimed that petitioner is working as a SDA through an outsource agency at respondent No.2/University while respondent No.4 has worked as a Stenographer in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor on the administrative side at respondent No.3/University and she also work experience having worked at Karnataka Veterinary, Animal & Fisherites Sciences University at Bidar from 1.2.2013 to 5.7.2018. 4. Respondents have further claimed that the Board and the Syndicate have accorded its approval and respondent No.4 is issued with the appointment order and 5 she has reported to duty and is working since the date of appointment and hence, have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Petitioner has furnished additional documents indicating that the recruitment notification imposes minimum eligibility criteria of administrative experience to the post of Assistant Registrar. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 7. The experience certificate issued by the Registrar, Karnataka State Women's University, Vijayapura, and Registrar, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University as per Annexures-R2 and R3 clearly reveal the eligibility of respondent No.4 in regard to administrative experience. The proceedings of the Board 6 evidenced at Annexure-R5 also reveals that five candidates were called for personal interview and only one candidate appeared for written test and was found to be eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Registrar. 8. In matters of selection and appointment, the scope of judicial review is inherently limited, particularly when the selection process is conducted by a duly constituted Board of Appointment comprising experts in the relevant field. Courts are not to act as appellate authorities to reassess the comparative merits of candidates unless there is a demonstrable violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, or where arbitrariness, malafides, or favoritism vitiate the process. In the present case, the Board of Appointment, consisting of seven members, has assessed the suitability of the candidates for the post of Assistant Registrar based on established criteria. The petitioner has not placed on record any substantive or cogent evidence to establish that the selection of respondent No.4 was 7 influenced by extraneous considerations or was vitiated by procedural irregularities. Mere unsubstantiated allegations regarding the lack of administrative exposure on the part of respondent No.4 do not constitute a valid basis for judicial interference, particularly when the selection was carried out through a structured and impartial evaluation process. Given the independent nature of the Board's assessment, the allegations of malafides stand significantly weakened, and in the absence of any tangible material to support such claims, judicial review in this matter is unwarranted. 9. The petitioner has belatedly raised an additional ground challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 on the basis that the candidate had exceeded the prescribed maximum age limit of 35 years. However, this contention is devoid of merit, as the relevant rules of the respondent University provide for relaxation of the upper age limit under specific circumstances. Regulation 6.3(b) of the University explicitly allows for an extension of the age limit for 8 candidates who have served for a substantial period. The records categorically indicate that respondent No.4 has completed more than ten years of service, thereby entitling her to the benefit of age relaxation under the said provision. In light of this clear regulatory framework, the petitioner's objection on the ground of age is unsustainable. Since the selection process was conducted in accordance with the University’s established regulations, and there is no demonstrated illegality or arbitrariness in the appointment of respondent No.4, the writ petition does not warrant judicial interference and is liable to be dismissed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-.