The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutes' tenure for the post of Director applied, and the respondent No. 1 cannot cherry-pick advantageous factors from C & R Rules and statutes.

JUDGMENT

S. Sujatha, J. - This Intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 25.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5591/2021 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein has been allowed quashing item No. 1 of the resolution [Annexure-T] of the appellant - University dated 16.01.2021 and the consequent relieving order dated 11.02.2021 [Annexure-V].

2. The appellant-University established in the year 1958 was under the control of the Mysuru University. In the year 1964, the Agricultural College at Hebbal and Dharward and the Veterinary College at Hebbal were associated along with other Research Institutions of Karnataka State. On 17.01.2005, University of Agriculture and Veterinary Science was bifurcated and a separate University was established for the Veterinary Sciences as Karnataka Veterinary Animals and Fisheries Science University ['KVAFSU' for short] which came into effect as notified by the State Government on 17.01.2005. The Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science Universities Act, 2004 ['Act' for short] was enacted by the State Legislature.

3. The respondent No. 3 - Institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biologicals ['Institute' for short] which was an Autonomous Institution, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, came to be transferred to the appellant - University.

4. The respondent No. 1, a Ph.D. and Masters Degree holder in Veterinary Science was appointed as Director in the Institute through selection by promotion from the cadre of Scientist-IV by an order dated 27.10.2014 [Annexure-N]. The respondent No. 1 has challenged the resolution of the Board of Management of University at item No. 1 of its 95th meeting held on 16.01.2021 [Annexure-T] by which the Board of Management of the University has placed the respondent No. 1 on independent charge of Director and the order dated 11.02.2021 [Annexure-V] passed by the University, the consequential communication, relieving the respondent No. 1 from the post of Director and placing on independent charge in the Writ Petition. Writ petition being allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.08.2021, the University has preferred this Writ Appeal.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - University submitted that KVAFSU came into force from 17.01.2005. The Institute was transferred to KVAFSU under Notification dated 13.01.2006 by the State Government with effect from 01.04.2006. The respondent No. 1 had submitted his consent dated 01.04.2006 under Section 8 of KVAFSU, to be an employee of the University. The statutes of KVAFSU received the assent of the Chancellor on 13.06.2009 and was published in the Official Gazette on 22.10.2009. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 27.10.2014 as Director through selection by promotion in terms of the C & R Rules of the University applicable at the relevant point of time. The respondent No. 1 has been holding the post of Director, Institute for a period of more than seven years i.e., from 27.10.2014 though under the Statutes of the University, the term of Director is only for a maximum period of four years. The respondent No. 1 having consented to become an employee of the University from 01.04.2006 and the statutes having been made applicable to the Institute from 09.11.2018, cannot now contend that his condition of service cannot be modified and should be as per C & R Rules of the Institute when he was appointed. The respondent No. 1 is continued in service even after attaining 60 years on 31.07.2020 and is enjoying the benefits of extension of retirement age to 62 years and UGC Pay-scale applicable under the Statutes. In such an event, no claim could be made under the C & R Rules of the Institute for continuing to function as the Director. The order of the learned Single Judge, upholding the claim of the first respondent in allowing him to carry on the functions as Director till superannuation runs con