1 Reserved on : 13.02.2025 Pronounced on : 20.02.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.104881 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI M.TIRALAPUR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) HAVERI UNIVERSITY KERIMATTIHALLI HAVERI – 581 110. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITY 2), M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. HAVERI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR KERIMATHALLI HAVERI – 581 110. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 2 3. DR. RENUKA METI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: PROFESSOR R/O DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PROCESSING AND NUTRITION, KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI WOMEN UNIVERSITY VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2025. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP SRI RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE AND SRI SUNIL BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI SHIVRAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.ED/131/UDV/2024 (4) DATED 14/08/2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a notification dated 14.08.2024, by which the petitioner is transferred and relieved from the duties of Registrar (Evaluation) of the second 3 respondent - Haveri University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’ for short) and in place, recommending the third respondent to the post of Registrar (Evaluation). 2. Heard Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Ramachandra A. Mali and Sri Sunil Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri Shivraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Sans details, facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is said to be a renowned academician; claims to have experience of more than 3 decades from 1992 and is said to be qualified with M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D. Owing to the qualification and experience of the petitioner and on the basis of her achievements, the first respondent - State appoints the petitioner as Registrar (Evaluation) of Akkamahadevi Women’s University, Vijayapura in terms of its order dated 16.03.2024. The person holding the post of the Registrar (Evaluation) is repatriated to the parent University. The repatriation is called in question by 4 the concerned in W.P.No.8331/2024, before the principle bench of this Court, which is said to have granted an interim order on 18.03.2024. During the pendency of the said petition, the first respondent transfers the petitioner from the present post and directs joining to the parent department / college. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner is before the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is most qualified to hold the post of Registrar (Evaluation) of the second respondent, a newly formed University. It is his contention that the petitioner has 30 years of experience in several cadres. Looking at the qualification and the experience the petitioner possessed, she is appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation) and further transferred to Akkamahadevi Women’s University, Vijayapura as Registrar (Evaluation). The impugned notification thus, is contrary to law is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the second respondent and the third respondent in unison would submit that 5 the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Registrar (Evaluation), on a plain and simple reading of Section 18 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). It is their submission that a person who is an Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service or a senior member of faculty of any University or a senior member of faculty of any University could become the Registrar (Evaluation). The petitioner is not admittedly a senior member of faculty of any University and places reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench rendered in W.P.No.8413/2024 disposed on 18.06.2024, which interprets the very provision. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. In all, the respondents would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 6 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The factum of career of the petitioner is a matter of record, it need not be reiterated. The petitioner is appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University and is posted to Akkamahadevi Women’s University, Vijayapura, as the Registrar (Evaluation). The notification dated 16.03.2024, reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ E-PÀbÉÃj ¸ÀASÉå: Er/02/JA««/2023 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ §ºÀĪÀĺÀr PÀlÖqÀ ¨ ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:16.03.2024 ಅಸೂಚೆ . ಜಯಲ ಎಂ. ಾಪರ, ಕುಲಸವರು (ೌಲಾವನ) "ಾ#ೇ% ಶ' (ಾಲಯ, "ಾ#ೇ% (ಮುಖಸ+ರು ಅಂUÀè ,ಾಗ, ಮ.ಾoÀ ಮಂಡಳ ಕಾ ಮತು2 #ಾ3ಜ ಮ"ಾ (ಾಲಯ, 4ಾಾಪರ, 5ೆಳ6ಾ ), ಇವರನು8 "ೆ9. . ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï, PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ (ೌಲಾವನ) CPÀ̪ÀĺÁzÉë ªÀÄ»¼Á ಶ' (ಾಲಯ, ಜಯಪರ ಇವರ ಸ+ಳ;ೆ< ಕಾಟಕ .ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾಲಯಗಳ ಅ>ಯಮ, 2000ರ 18ೇ ಪ ಕರಣದ (1)ೇ ಉಪ ಪ ಕರಣದB ಪ ದvÀÛ#ಾದ ಅ;ಾರ ಚಾCD, Eಾವಜ>ಕ "ಾಗೂ ಆಡGHಾIತಕ JತದೃLMCಂದ vÀNಣOಂದ Pಾ%6ೆ ಬರುವಂHೆ "ಾಗೂ ಮುಂOನ ಆ(ೇಶದವ.ೆ6ೆ ೇRD ಆ(ೇSD(ೆ. . "ೆ9. ಎಂ. ಚಂದ TೇಖU, ಇವರನು8 ಅವರು ಮೂಲತಃ WಾರXೆ ಾBರುವ Yೖಸೂರು ಶ' (ಾಲಯದ [ಾ Wಾಪಕರು ವೃಂದದ ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ JಂOರು^ಸಾ^(ೆ. . ಜಯಲ, ಎಂ. ಾಪರ, ಇವರ ಅಕ<ಮ"ಾ(ೇ ಮJ`ಾ ಶ' (ಾಲಯದ ಕುಲಸವರು (ೌಲಾವನು ಹು(ೆ]ಯ ೇಮ;ಾ6ೆ ಸಂಬಂDದ Eೇ#ಾ ಷರತು2 ಮತು2 >ಬಂಧೆಗಳನು8 ನಂತರದcd "ೊರBಸಾಗುವದು. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ ಅfಾನುEಾರ ಮತು2 ಅವರ "ೆಸ%ನcd 7 ¸À»/- (±À²PÀ¯Á ¹.) ಸ;ಾರದ ಅೕನ ;ಾಯದS ಉನ8ತ SNಣ ಇಾ4ೆ ( ಶ' (ಾಲಯ-1).” (Emphasis added) On 14.08.2024, comes the impugned notification by which, the petitioner is transferred and sought to be posted to the parent University on the score that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of the Registrar (Evaluation) in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The notification reads as follows: “¸ÀASÉå: Er 131 AiÀÄÄr« 2024(4) ಕಾಟಕ ಸ;ಾರದ ಸ#ಾಲಯ §ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ 5ೆಂಗಳgರು, Oಾಂಕ: 14-08-2024 ಅಸೂಚೆ ಕಾಟಕ .ಾಜದcdನ ಶ' (ಾಲಯಗಳcdನ ರhEಾMU ೌಲಾಪನ ಹು(ೆ]ಯು ಶ' (ಾಲಯದ ಪiಣ;ಾcಕ ಅ;ಾ%jಾ^ದು], ರhEಾMU ೌಲಾಪನ ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ ಕಾಟಕ .ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾ>ಲಯಗಳ ಅ>ಯಮ 2000ರ ಪ ಕರಣ 18(1) ರನ'ಯ ಸಮೂಹ-ಎ J%ಯ Tೆ ೕXೆಯ ಕಾಟಕ ಆಡGತ Eೇ#ೆ6ೆ Eೇ%ದ ಒಬl ಅ;ಾ%ಯನು8 ಅಥ#ಾ jಾವ(ೇ ಶ' (ಾ>ಲಯದ #ಾಸಂಗ ,ಾಗದ ಒnಬ J%ಯ ಸದಸನನು8 .ಾಜ ಸ;ಾರವ ೇಮಕ ಾಡಲು ಅವ;ಾಶ ದು], ಅದರಂHೆ ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅ;ಾ%ಯನು8 ಈ Jಂ(ೆ ೇಮಕ ಾಡಾ^ತು2. ಈ ;ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅ;ಾ%ಯು ಕಾಟಕ .ಾಜ ಶ' (ಾ>ಲಯಗಳ ಅ>ಯಮ-2000 ಪ ಕರಣ 18(1) ರನ'ಯ ಶ' (ಾ>ಲಯದ #ಾಸಂಗ ,ಾಗದ ಒಬl J%ಯ ಸದಸಾ^ಲd(ೇ 8 ಇರುವ ;ಾರಣ ಪ ಸು2ತ ಸದ%ಯವರುಗಳ Eೇ#ೆಯನು8 ಅವರ ಾತೃ ಇಾ4ೆ/;ಾೇಜುಗG6ೆ ತNಣOಂದ Pಾ%6ೆ ಬರುವಂHೆ Jಂರು^D ಆ(ೇSD(ೆ. ಈ ಅ;ಾ%ಯು ಕೂಡೇ ಪ ಸು2ತ ಕತವ >ವJಸು2ರುವ ಶ' (ಾಲಯ Eೇ#ೆCಂದ pಡುಗqೆ "ೊಂO ಅವ%6ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟM ಾತೃ ಶ' (ಾಲಯ/;ಾೇhನcd ವರO ಾB;ೊಂಡು ಸ;ಾರ;ೆ< ಾJ ಒದ^ಸುವಂHೆ ಸೂD(ೆ. PÀæ.¸ÀA ೇಮಕ ಾಡಾದ ಶ' (ಾಲಯ ಮತು2 ಹು(ೆ] ೇಮಕ6ೊಂಡವರ "ೆಸರು "ಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಹು(ೆ] ೇಮಕ ಾಡಾದ ಸ;ಾರದ ಅOಸೂಚೆ ಸಂ4ೆ & Oಾಂಕ 1 "ಾ#ೇ% ಶ' (ಾಲಯ ಕುಲಸವರು (ೌಲಾಪನ) . ಜಯಲ ಾಪರ, ಮುಖಸ+ರು, ಆಂಗd ,ಾಗ, ಮ.ಾಠ ಮಂಡಳ ಕಾ ಮತು2 #ಾ3ಜ ಮ"ಾ (ಾಲಯ, 4ಾಾಪರ, 5ೆಳ6ಾ . Er 48 AiÀÄÄ©© 2023, Oಾಂಕ: 28-03-2023. ಸ;ಾರವ ಕುಲಸವ (ೌಲಾಪನ) ಹು(ೆ]6ೆ ೇಮಕ ಾಡುವವ.ೆ6ೆ >ಯಾನುEಾರ ಕುಲಪಗಳ ಹಂತದcd ಅಹ ವt2ಯನು8 ಪ ,ಾರದcd%ಸಲು ಕ ಮವJಸುವದು. ಕಾಟಕ .ಾಜ[ಾಲರ ಆfಾನುEಾರ ಮತು2 ಅವರ "ೆಸ%ನcd ಸJ/- 14.08.2024 (;ೆ.ಮಂಜುಾಥ) 'ಸ;ಾರದ ಅೕನ ;ಾಯದS ಉನ8ತ SNಣ ಇಾ4ೆ ( ಶ' (ಾಲಯ-2).” (Emphasis added) In the light of the fact that the petitioner is nonsuited to hold the post of Registrar (Evaluation) on the score that she is not 9 eligible in terms of Section 18 of the Act, it becomes germane to notice Section 18 of the Act. It 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 may, 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 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 incharge 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).” (Emphasis supplied) Section 18 deals with Registrar (Evaluation). A person to hold the said post, should be a whole time officer of the University; 10 the State Government may appoint an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service not below the rank of Group ‘A’ senior scale as Registrar (Evaluation) or any senior member of the faculty of any University can also be appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation). 9. The issue in the lis revolves around the interpretation of Section 18 of the Act. The interpretation of Section 18 of the Act need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.8413/2024 supra has interpreted Section 18 of the Act to mean that a faculty of any University and not a faculty in any constituent or affiliated college. “….. …. …. 15. The Vice Chancellor, in response to the communication for his opinion on whether the third respondent, the Chairman of a Department of Studies could be considered a Senior Member of a Faculty of the university, has opined that the Chairman of a Department of Studies is appointed for a period of two years on rotation; that the third respondent is appointed as the Chairman of the Department of Organic Chemistry because the post of Professor is not occupied; that the third respondent, who is promoted with effect from 06.10.2022 as Associate Professor and appointed as the Chairman of the Department of Organic Chemistry, cannot be considered as a senior faculty member. 16. This file in No. 6814677/2023 is closed on 29.02.2024 [as could be seen from Note No.33] but is reopened again on 13.03.2024 with a note from the Hon'ble Chief Minister and concluding in the observation that the 11 outcome must await the decision in another file which is a reference to the file in No.6910890/2023. This file commences with the Note from the Hon'ble Chief Minister for transfer and appointment of certain third parties to the Animal Husbandry Universities, and with the Hon'ble Chief Minister putting up another note [as stated by Mr.Reuben Jacob on 04.03.2023] the petitioner’s replacement with the third respondent is considered as part of the decision to appoint the aforesaid as high functionaries of Bangalore University and it is ultimately done on 15.03.2024. 17. These circumstances will have to be examined to ascertain whether the first respondent's impugned order, which admittedly is in exercise of powers under the doctrine of pleasure, is in public or administrative interest. In view of the opinion rendered by the Vice Chancellor, the circumstances in which the file is closed and reopened to await the decision in another file, and ultimately leading to replacement of the petitioner with the appointment of the third respondent just on the eve of the Election Code of Conduct regime, this Court must opine that neither public interest nor administrative interest is established, and if the impugned notification fails, on this score there must be judicial intervention or otherwise the Universities’ institutional autonomy could be in jeopardy. The first question is answered accordingly. 18. The next question must be examined in the light of the provisions of Section 18[1] and 34[9] of the Act, and these provisions read as under: Section 18[1]: "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 12 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 panel is approved by the Syndicate within the time prescribed by the Statutes, the Chancellor may, 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 and emoluments of the Registrar [Evaluation] so appointed shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor. Section 34[9]: "34[9] Each Faculty shall consist of the following members, namely:- [i] the Dean of the Faculty; [ii] the Registrar [Evaluation]; [iii] the Chairman of the Department of Studies in the Faculty; [iv] all the Professors and in the absence of Professors, Readers in the Faculty from each Department in the Faculty; [v] one Reader and one Lecturer in each Department of Studies nominated by the Vice-Chancellor by rotation in the order of seniority for a term of two years; [vi] five Teachers of colleges and two experts from other Universities in the State nominated by the Vice-Chancellor for a term of two years; and [vii] such other persons as may be specified by the Statutes." The crucial expression in Section 18[1] of the Act is a Senior Member of Faculty of any University, and if a person could be recognized a senior member of a faculty of any university, such person would be eligible for appointment. 19. The expression a Senior Member of Faculty of any University is not defined specifically, nor anything is mentioned to indicate in Section 18 of the who, for the purposes of appointment as the Registrar [Evaluation], will be a Senior Member of Faculty. However, the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, while stipulating that a University shall have Faculties, 13 stipulate that faculties shall consist of Department of Studies and the composition of the Department of Studies with a Chairman. As regards the composition of a faculty, the provisions of Section 34[9] of the Act mandate that it shall, apart from the Dean of Faculty and Registrar [Evaluation] and the Chairman of the Department of Studies in the Faculty, comprise of Professors, a Reader and a Lecturer in each Department.” 20. This Court in the light of afore provisions must opine that the Chairman of the Department of Studies in a Faculty of university will be a senior member of faculty as contemplated under Section 18[1] of the Act, and the Act does not admit any ambiguity. The question for the present purposes is, whether the third respondent could be called a senior member of the faculty only because he is appointed as the Chairman of the department of Organic Chemistry. 21. The Government should have necessarily examined this question in the light of Vice Chancellor’s opinion that the third respondent's appointment as the Chairman of the Department of Studies would not have come about if there was a professor in the department of Organic Chemistry. If the petitioner fortuitously comes to occupy the position, this Court must say that it cannot by itself confer eligibility. The Government should have considered all aspects before displacing the petitioner with the third respondent's appointment. Therefore, the second question is answered holding that the third respondent could not have been eligible to be appointment as the Registrar [evaluation] only because he is appointed as the Chairman of the Department of Organic Chemistry.” (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner therein was the Chairman of the Department of Studies of the University. He was held to be fitting into the 14 definition of senior member of the faculty as obtaining under Section 18(1) of the Act, as he was the Chairman of the Department of Studies in the University. 10. On the afore-quoted interpretation, the case of the petitioner requires to be considered. The petitioner has been a faculty in Marata Mandal Arts and Commerce Degree and M.Com, MSC, PG Center, Belagavi; NAD Nodal Officer; Vice Chairman In- charge; Registrar (Admin) In-charge and Finance Officer In-charge of the University. On a pointed query, as to whether the petitioner was a senior faculty in any University, the answer is ‘No’. The petitioner has been a senior faculty in one of the constituent colleges or an affiliated college, and not in any University. It is therefore, on a plain reading of the interpretation of Section 18 of the Act as rendered by the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.8413/2024 supra, it can without any contradiction be opined that the petitioner does not fit into the definition of senior faculty of any University. 11. On such interpretation of Section 18 of the Act and ineligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Registrar 15 (Evaluation), the impugned notification dated 14.08.2024, would not require any interference. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the term itself would get over by the end of May, 2025 and the petitioner should be permitted to be continued till then. The submission is sans countenance, as, if a person is ineligible to hold the post, this Court by its order cannot direct the said person to continue and complete the tenure, despite the fact of ostensible ineligibility. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected. The interim order granted earlier, if any, stands dissolved. ______SD/-___________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA nvj CT:SS