- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 15794 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA A K S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGE 48 YEARS, OCC. GUEST LECTURER SATHYAMANGALA GRAMAPANCHAYATH INDIRA NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, MANDARA ROAD HASSAN DIST …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MULIMANI BASAVARAJ NAGAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE FOR WOMEN Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 GANDHADAKOTI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TERMINATE THE PETITIONER WITHOUT PROPER EQUIRY AND CONCLUSIVE PROOF. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the petitioner without proper enquiry and conclusive proof. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is serving as a Guest Lecturer in respondent No.3 – college and has been rendering satisfactory service for several years. At the time of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 appointment, the petitioner submitted his Ph.D. certificate before the competent authorities, through communication dated 30.01.2026, categorically confirmed the petitioner’s Ph.D. certificate is genuine. SOP is issued later on 17.02.2026. Respondent No.3 may initiate coercive action by relieving or terminating him from service based on earlier doubts. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus on the ground of apprehension that the respondents may terminate the petitioner from service without proper enquiry and conclusive proof. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Guest Lecturer in respondent No.3-college. He submits that the petitioner has got apprehension that the respondents - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 may terminate the petitioner from service based on earlier doubts. Hence, a mandamus be issued to the respondents not to terminate the petitioner from service without holding a proper enquiry. Hence, on this ground, prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. He submits that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of mere apprehension. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working as a Guest Lecturer in respondent No.3- college. The petitioner is having apprehension that the respondents may terminate him from service without holding an enquiry. In order to substantiate his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 case, the petitioner has not produced any records to show that the respondents may likely to terminate the petitioner from service. In order to issue a mandamus on the ground of assumption the petitioner must show basic assumption that there must be some reasonable grounds to support the alleged threat and must satisfy the Court about the impending threat with reference to the facts constituting the grounds. It is settled law that where on a mere apprehension in the mind of a citizen, he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and obtain an anticipatory relief. Admittedly no right of the petitioner is effected as of now. 9. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for obtaining the relief as prayed for. the petitioner except pleading has not produced any record to show that the respondents are likely to terminate the petitioner from service. If the respondents passes any order of punishment, the petitioner can very well - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26228 WP No. 15794 of 2026 challenge the order of punishment. Merely on the basis of apprehension, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 10. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53