- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106080 OF 2024 (S-TR) BETWEEN: DR. N. MARUTI RAO AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR, R/O. PLOT NO. 15, BHARAT COLONY, MAHANTESH NAGAR, KANBARAGI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590016, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY VIDYA SANGAMA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-04, BELAGAVI-591156, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMIN). 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR THE RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY, VIDYA SANGAMA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-04, BELAGAVI-591156, DHARWAD-580001. 3. DR. YASHMIN BEGAUM NADAF AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, THE RANI CHANNAMMA UNIVERSITY, VIDYA SANGAMA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-04, BELAGAVI-591156. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP G.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VAISHALI KALADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI AND SRI PRAVEEN G.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES FOR R3) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.20 15:21:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.gÁZÀ«¨É/PÀĸÀPÁ/¹D¸ÀÄ«/2024-25/3249 DATED 04.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE HIS SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNIVERSITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a professor and Chairman of department of Business Administration at Rani Channamma University, has called in question the order dated 04.10.2024, whereby he was transferred from the department of Business Administration to the department of Commerce, and seeks quashing of the said order along with the consequential direction to permit him to continue in his parent department. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner has been serving in the University since 2011 and was promoted as Professor with effect from - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 17.12.2014. By order dated 26.12.2023, he was appointed as a Chairman of the department of Administration for a period of two years. On 04.10.2024, respondent No.1- University issued an order transferring the petitioner to the department of Commerce, while transferring respondent No.3 from Commerce to Business Administration department. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 08.10.2024 seeking withdrawal of transfer which was not considered. Aggrieved, the petitioner, contending that the inter-departmental transfer is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law, has approached this Court 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer is inter-disciplinary, compelling the petitioner to teach commerce subjects outside his appointment and expertise. The impugned order adversely affects his service conditions, seniority, promotional prospects and his statutory position as Chairman. The University lacks competence to effect such transfer, according to the petitioner only the Chancellor is empowered under the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (‘Act’ for short), that the transfer is premature as the petitioner was appointed as a Chairman for a fixed period of two years. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the transfer is an incident of service, consent of the employee is not required. That the petitioner is not aggrieved by the transfer of respondent No.3 and has himself signed her joining report. It is contended that the petitioner had earlier served in department of Commerce for four years, pursuant to a transfer in 2019 and is estopped from raising objection now. The transfer was effected by the Registrar with approval of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 15(5) of the Act for administrative reasons, and there is an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Chancellor is available and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 6. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that the impugned transfer is arbitrary, inter-disciplinary, without authority of law and adversely affects his service conditions and statutory position. On the other hand, the respondent-University contended that the transfer is incident of transfer affected by administrative reason and there is an efficacious alternative statutory remedy provided under the Act. 7. At the outset, this Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner arises of an intra-university administrative transfer. Relevant to note that the term of chairmanship has expired. The issue canvassed involved examination of factual aspects relating to administrative exigency, academic suitability, and the scope of exercise by the Vice-Chancellor under the Act. 8. Section 15(5) of the Act reads thus: “(5) In case of emergency which, in his opinion, requires immediate action, the Vice- Chancellor shall take such action as he deems - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 necessary and shall at the earliest opportunity thereafter report the action taken to such authority or body which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter: Provided that if the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is not approved by the Authority or body concerned, he may refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided further that any person in the service of the University affected by the decision of the Authority or body based on the report of the Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section may prefer an appeal to the Chancellor within thirty days from the date on which the decision was communicated to him and the decision of the Chancellor on such appeal shall be final: Provided also that the powers vested under this sub-section shall not be exercised to revise the pay scale of University employees or to grant affiliation to a college or a course of instruction and if in the exercise of the powers under this sub-section Statutes or Regulations are framed, they shall be subject to the approval of the Chancellor under the relevant provisions - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 of this Act and if Ordinances are made they shall be submitted to the Chancellor in accordance with this Act.” Emphasis supplied 9. Section 15(5) of the Act empowers the Vice- Chancellor to take administrative decisions, subject to the statutory checks provided therein. The second proviso to Section 15(5) specifically provides a remedy of appeal to the Chancellor, who is the statutory authority under the Act. 10. The existence of such a remedy is efficacious under the Act. The Chancellor is competent to examine all the contentions raised by the petitioner including the authority to pass the impugned order, the nature of transfer and alleged arbitrariness. The present petition does not fall within the recognized exemption to the rule of alternative remedy. There is no prima facie material placed to demonstrate a patent lack of jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice or established mala fides - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the availability of the efficacious alternative statutory remedy, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be inappropriate to entertain the writ petition and accordingly pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail alternative statutory remedy by filing an appeal/representation before the Chancellor under second Proviso to Section 15(5) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 within period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii. If such an appeal is filed, the Chancellor shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:351 WP No. 106080 of 2024 orders as expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. iv. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. v. All the issues are kept pending to be urged before the statutory authority. vi. Interim order shall continue for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No:54.1