Important Point
Where the Governor appointed a person as Vice-Chancellor but on the very next day, before the incumbent could take charge of the post, can­celled the appointment stating reason for that the incumbent could not challenge the order of cancellation on the ground that he was not given opportunity of being heard.

Judgment

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides at length.

3. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this judgment are as follows:

The Governor of Karnataka, who is the Chancellor of the Mysore Univer­sity, selected the appellant herein, who was Profession in Physics in the University of Mysore to be the Vice Chancellor of the said Univer­sity while exercising his powers under Section 11 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. An order was passed by him on August 20, 1997 by which he appointed the appellant herein as Vice-Chancellor for a period of three years with effect from September 4, 1997. But on the very next day, i.e. on August 21, 1997, he passed another order refer­ring to a news item which appeared in the Times of India in respect of the appellant herein stating that he had been facing a criminal case and had been named as the Vice Chancellor. The order passed by the Chancellor stated that he was not aware earlier of the pendency of the criminal case as against the appellant herein and that he found it not desirable to appoint the appellant as Vice Chancellor. Consequently, the earlier order of appointment was rescinded by the later order.

4. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was taken on file as Writ Petition No. 23086 of 1997. In the writ petition it was contended by the appellant that in the criminal case he was acquitted later as the charge was found to be unsustainable and that the order of the Chancellor rescinding the earlier order was not valid inasmuch as he had not been given any opportunity to be heard before it. The High Court dismissed the writ petition taking the view that it was for the Chancellor to decide whether the appellant could be appointed as the Vice Chancellor and even the pendency of the criminal case was sufficient for him to cancel the order of appointment inasmuch as it had been passed immedi­ately and much before the date on which the appointment could become effective. The appellant challenged the said order in a writ appeal. That was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The appel­lant brought it to this Court by way of a special leave petition. The appellant had also filed a review petition in the High Court. In the special leave petition, the appellant made a submission that in the review petition, filed before the High Court, notice had been issued and therefore, he would withdraw the special leave petition. Conse­quently, this Court dismissed that special leave petition as with­drawn. Subsequently, the review petition, filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case was subsequent to the order of the Chancellor and on the date on which that order was made, the proceed­ings in the criminal case were pending and, therefore, it was support­ed by proper reasons. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred these appeals on special leave against both the original order in the writ appeal and the order on the review petition.

5. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has put forward two contentions: (1) the appellant was entitled to notice before the order was passed by the Chancellor; and (2) the order casts a stigma against the appellant and principles of natural justice required an opportuni­ty to be given to the appellant before such an order was passed. It was contended that if such an opportunity had been given, the appel­lant would have brought to the notice of the Chancellor that in the criminal case the judgment would be pronounced within a few days and would have requested the Chancellor to wait for a few days before passing any order. So far as this factual aspect is concerned, there is no such averment in the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court. However, it is not necessary for us to go into that aspect of the case.

6.