IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S. Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar, JJ.
Bangalore University - Appellant
Versus
Sangamesh Patil A. & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 3779/2019, 3780/2019, 3839/2019 and 3909/2019 (GM - RES)
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Concurrence - Appointment of Vice Chancellor - Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 - Section 14(4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and its proviso, which require the concurrence of the State Government for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor. The court emphasized the importance of 'concurrence' and its contemporaneous nature, and held that any ratification cannot cure the defects and validate the invalid action.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru University. The appointment was challenged on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 for want of concurrence of the State Government. The court heard the appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge and considered the arguments of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the Vice Chancellor was in violation of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act, as it lacked the necessary concurrence of the State Government. The court emphasized the importance of 'concurrence' and held that any ratification cannot cure the defects and validate the invalid action.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of the Vice Chancellor was in compliance with the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act, specifically regarding the requirement of concurrence of the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the Vice Chancellor was invalid as it lacked the necessary concurrence of the State Government, as required by Section 14(4) of the Act. The court emphasized the contemporaneous nature of 'concurrence' and the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeals and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, finding no reasons to interfere with the well-considered order.
JUDGMENT
S. Sujatha, J. - Since common and akin issues are involved, the matters are heard together and disposed of, by this common judgment.
2. These intra Court appeals are filed against the order dated 24.9.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 55552/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by Dr. Sangamesh Patil A, setting aside the notification dated 12.6.2018, by which Professor Venugopal K.R., was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University.
3. The petitioner - Dr. Sangamesh Patil A., claiming to be the Professor in the discipline of Industrial Chemistry, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, has filed the writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. K.R. Venugopal as the Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru University.
4. It transpires that the Search Committee had recommended a panel of three names including the petitioner for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor, Bengaluru University, as per the decision taken on 11.5.2017. The Hon'ble Chancellor appointed Professor Venugopal K.R., as Vice Chancellor of Bengaluru University. This appointment of Professor Venugopal K.R., was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the same is in blatant violation of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('Act' for short) for want of concurrence of the State Government placing reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of the State of Karnataka, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department v. Dr. Shivayogeppa B. Hinchigeri and others, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 81. It was contended that the Deputy Secretary to Government had forwarded a communication to the Registrar, Bengaluru University, to rescind the order of appointment of Professor Venugopal K.R., to the post of Professor/Vice Chancellor since the Director, Backward Tribe Department has sent a communication to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, alleging false caste certificate obtained by said Professor Venugopal K.R., on the basis of which he was appointed to the post of Professor.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the statement of objections. Considering the same, the writ petition came to be disposed of placing reliance on the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Dr. Shivayogeppa B. Hinchigeri, supra, observing that the Court is conscious of the fact that the writ petition has been heard without the objections of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, quashed the notification dated 12.6.2018 - the appointment order of Professor Venugopal K.R., as Vice Chancellor. Being aggrieved, WA. No. 3779/2019 is filed by the Bengaluru University; WA. No. 3839/2019 is filed by the Hon'ble Chancellor of Bengaluru University; WA. No. 3780/2019 is filed by Professor Venugopal K.R.; and WA. No. 3909/2019 is filed by the State.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Aditya Sondhi appearing for the Hon'ble Chancellor of Bengaluru University (appellant in WA. No. 3839/2019) argued that the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 14(2) of the Act to select a panel of three names of eminent academicians for selection of a Vice Chancellor. The Search Committee has submitted the names to the State Government which was submitted to the Hon'ble Chancellor, who was required to appoint one person from the panel as a Vice Chancellor keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government. As the State Government has not concurred with the appointment of Professor Venugopal K.R., who was selected by the Hon'ble Chancellor, proviso to Section 14(4) of the Act was attracted. In terms of the said proviso, Hon'ble Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government had called for a second panel. The name of Professor Venugopal K.R. was selected. Hon'ble Chancellor had issued a notification dated 12.6.2018 appointing Professor Venugopal K.R., as the Vice Chancellor of the Bengaluru University for a period
Ashok Kumar Das vs. University of Burdwan
Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of Kerala and Others (1999) 3 SCC 422 para 35)
Bihar Christian Schools' Assn. vs. State of Bihar
Chandrashekaraiah (Retired) vs. Janekere C. Krishna and ors.
CIT vs. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd., (AIR 1959 SC 713 : 1959 Supp (2) SCR 256
Dwarka Prasad vs. Dwarka Das Saraf
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. P.P. Singh
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs. Sunil
Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan (1989) 3 SCC 132
Ram Narain Sons Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (AIR 1955 SC 765 : (1955) 2 SCR 483
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., vs. Union of India
Sri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta vs. the Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 543)
Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1959 SC 1012 : 1959 Supp (2) SCR 875
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of 'concurrence' of the State Government for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor under Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Univers....
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.
Consultation does not mean concurrence, and the final decision rests with the consultor.
(1) Writ of Quo warranto – Writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with law – Quo warranto is directed to such person who is required to show by what a....
Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – While preparing panel, Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence; exposure to higher education system in country and abroad, an....
The UGC Regulations, 2018 prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
First choice in Section 13(7) of “Act” is Vice Chancellor of any other University in Kerala; and admittedly, all such persons are fully qualified in terms of both experience and educational qualifica....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State had the authority to pass appropriate directions under Section 19 of the West Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and R....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.