- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 22588 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: DR. ANANDA KUMAR. C. S. S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) BENGALURU CITY UNIVERSITY DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITY), M S BUILDING BANGALORE -560001. 2. BENGALURU CITY UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGLAORE-560001. 3. VISVESVASRAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 JNANA SANGAMA BELAGAVI- 590018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.A. AHMED, AAG A/W SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R3 D/W V.O.D. 22.08.2024) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 (ANNX-G) AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 BEARING NO. ED 131 UDV 2024(5) PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-G) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), BENGALURU CITY UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER The petitioner, Associate Professor of 3rd Respondent-Visvesvaraya Technological University (for short “VTU”) presently working as Registrar (Evaluation), Bengaluru City University is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the Notification dated 14.08.2024 bearing No.ED 131 UDV 2024 (5) (Annexure-G) by which, the petitioner’s services is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 repatriated to his parent University i.e., 3rd respondent on the ground that he would not fulfill conditions of Section 18(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short “2000 Act”). 2. The brief facts of the case are that, The petitioner, an Associate Professor in the 3rd Respondent-VTU in the Department of Nano Technology was appointed as Registrar of the 2nd respondent- University under Annexure-D/Notification dated 21.09.2023. It is stated that, under Annexure-E dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner is said to have reported to duty at 2nd Respondent-University as Registrar. Under impugned notification dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner is repatriated to his parent University i.e., 3rd Respondent- VTU, on the ground that the petitioner is not a senior faculty member in the Department of Studies of the University. Questioning the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.Sathish for petitioner; learned Additional Advocate General Sri.S.A.Ahmed along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State and Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order repatriating the petitioner from 2nd Respondent-University to 3rd Respondent-VTU is wholly illegal and opposed to Section 18(1) of 2000 Act. Further, learned counsel would submit that taking note of the particulars furnished by the 3rd Respondent-VTU in terms of Annexure-C dated 14.08.2023 to the effect that the petitioner is working as senior faculty in the Department of Applied Sciences, the petitioner was deputed to work as Registrar to the 2nd Respondent-University. The Government after verifying the credentials of the petitioner as well as the information supplied by the 3rd Respondent-VTU rightly appointed the petitioner as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 Registrar of the 2nd Respondent-University. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to Section 18(1) of the 2000 Act submits that the Section would state that the State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, not below the rank of Group-A Senior Scale or a senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University. Since the petitioner is a senior faculty member of 3rd Respondent-VTU and possessed qualification as prescribed under Section 18 of 2000 Act, the Government has rightly appointed the petitioner as Registrar of 2nd Respondent- University. 5. Per contra, learned AAG for respondent-State would submit that the University is defined under Section 2(13) of the Act. The ‘University’ means a University established and incorporated under Section 3 of 2000 Act. Learned AAG at the outset submits that the 3rd Respondent-VTU is not University established and incorporated under 2000 Act and it is not a University established under Section 3 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 of 2000 Act. Thus, learned AAG would submit that the petitioner would not be entitled for consideration of his case for appointment as Registrar. Further, learned AAG inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-B to the writ petition submits that the petitioner is only an Associate Professor in the department of Applied Sciences, whereas, the Professor would be the senior faculty member of the department of Applied Sciences. Since the petitioner is working in the lower cadre and the persons working in the higher cadre of Professor are available, the petitioner could not be considered as senior faculty. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner has made out any ground to interfere with the Notification dated 14.08.2024 Annexure-G, repatriating the petitioner to his parent University i.e., 3rd Respondent-VTU. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 7. Answer to the above point would be in the negative and the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition, for the following reasons: Admittedly, the petitioner is working as an Associate Professor in the department of Applied Sciences in the 3rd Respondent-VTU. Annexure-B seniority of faculty members working in the Visveswaraya Technological University P.G. Center at Muddenahalli indicates that apart from petitioner who is working as Associate Professor, one Sri.Dinesh Rangappa is working as Professor. When a Professor is working in the Department, a junior, Associate Professor cannot be called as senior faculty and a Professor working in the department of Applied Sciences could be called as senior faculty. 8. Section 2(13) defines “University” which reads as follows: “2(13) “University” means a University established and incorporated under Section 3.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 The 3rd Respondent-VTU is not a University incorporated or established under Section 3 of 2000 Act. Respondent No.3 is established and incorporated under Visveswaraya Technological University’s Act, 1994 (for short “1994 Act”). 9. Section 18 of 2000 Act reads as follows: “18. The Registrar (Evaluation):- (1) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time officer of the University. The State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, not below the rank of Group-A Senior scale or a senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University: Provided that where no such person is available then the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Syndicate from out of a penal of not less than three persons recommended by the Vice Chancellor. If none of the persons in the penal is approved by the Syndicate within the time prescribed by the Statutes, the Chancellor ,ay, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor appoint such other person as he deems fit to be the Registrar (Evaluation). The terms and conditions of service - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 and emoluments of the Registrar (Evaluation) so appointed shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor. (2) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a Member of the Syndicate, the Academic Council, Finance Committee and all the Faculties. (3) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be in charge of the conduct of examinations and all other matters incidental thereto and ancillary therewith and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes or Ordinances, or as may be allocated to him by the Vice-Chancellor. (4) The Registrar (Evaluation) may be assisted by one or more Deputy Registrars (Evaluation) and Assistant Registrars (Evaluation). In terms of Section 18(1) of 2000 Act, the State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service not below the rank of Group-A Senior Scale or a senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7587 WP No. 22588 of 2024 10. Admittedly as stated above, the petitioner is not senior faculty or senior faculty member of University established in terms of Section 3 of 2000 Act. 11. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9