Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12666 (KAR)

DR S THIPPESWAMY v. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY

WP/28/2014 · 2025-03-12

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10453 WP No. 28 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. S. THIPPESWAMY S/O K SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.104, B-BLOCK PREMIER DAFFODILS APARTMENTS, MERCARA HILL ROAD, BENDORE MANGALORE-575002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR MANGALAGANGOTHRI KONAJE, PIN-574199 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 2. DR. T.C. SHIVASHANKAR MURTHY S/O T.L. CHIKKALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS FORMER VICE CHANCELLOR, MANGALORE UNIVERSITY, MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574199 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT (PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.13, II STAGE, I CROSS, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE-570009) 3. DR. VISHWANATHA S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROFESSOR IN ECONOMICS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10453 WP No. 28 of 2014 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTHRI- 574199 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 4. DR. M. RAJASHEKHAR S/O S. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS PROFESSOR OF BIOSCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF BIOSCIENCES MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574199 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ADVERTISEMENT OF PROFESSORS POSTS IN BACKLOG NOTIFICATION NO.MU/18/EST(1)/2012-13/BACKLOG, DATED 10.05.2013 OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notification bearing No.MU/18/EST(1)/2012-13/Backlog dated 10.05.2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against backlog vacancies. The petitioner has also challenged the orders of appointment of the private respondents vide notification bearing No.MU/9/EST(1)/2001-2002 dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10453 WP No. 28 of 2014 19.09.2002 (Annexure - B). The petitioner has also challenged an Official Memorandum bearing No.MU/9/EST(1)/2001-2002 dated 22.01.2003 in respect of appointment of the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the general merit category and was a Professor in Biotechnology. He contends that the respondent No.1 had invited applications from eligible candidates for backlog vacancies. He contends that this notification was issued only to deprive him of an opportunity to apply against a post for general merit. He contends that the private respondents are the appointees pursuant to the notification dated 10.05.2013 issued by respondent No.1. 3. When this Court queried the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner is interested to pursue this writ petition as he has already attained the age of superannuation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner was selected, there was likelihood of some financial benefits. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10453 WP No. 28 of 2014 4. The notification placed on record shows that all the vacancies in the department of Biosciences were clubbed and reservation was provided. Therefore, it is difficult to identify whether the discipline in which the petitioner was qualified to be appointed was filled by any other person belonging to the reserved category. Now that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, this writ petition has become infructuous. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19