Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRASANNA B. VARALE, KRISHNA S. DIXIT, JJ.
Prof. B. Shivaraj., S/o. C.L. Bore Gowda – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rep By Its Secretary Dept. Of Higher Education and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.21681 Of 2022(S-RES-PIL) c/w Writ Petition No.23349 Of 2022 (S-RES-PIL)
Decided On : 07-11-2023
The court considered the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 and the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. The court discussed the qualifications required for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor and the guidelines for the constitution of a Search Committee. The court also referred to certain rulings of the Supreme Court that emphasized the mandatory nature of the UGC guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a PIL seeking the removal of the 3rd respondent from the office of Vice Chancellor of the University. They argued that the Search Committee was wrongly constituted and that the 3rd respondent lacked the requisite qualifications and had criminal antecedents. The respondents opposed the petitions and relied on certain rulings. The court found that the petitions lacked bonafide and dismissed them without examining the merits of the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the conduct and credentials of the petitioners and found that they had not approached the court with clean hands. The court also noted a delay in questioning the appointment. It held that where a litigant is not fair in approaching the court and does not disclose all relevant facts, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The court declined to examine the contentions and counter contentions of the parties on the merits of the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the petitions on the grounds of lack of bonafide, failure to approach the court with clean hands, and delay in questioning the appointment. The court held that a litigant must disclose all relevant facts and cannot mislead the court. The court also emphasized the importance of the Vice Chancellor being the conscience keeper of the university.
Result: The petitions were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the regularity of the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Vice Chancellor.
ORDER :
1. These two petitions invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court essentially for a writ of quo warranto for the removal of 3rd respondent from the office of Vice Chancellor of the 5 th respondent –University.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the subject appointment is liable to be voided for the following reasons:
(ii) The 3rd respondent appointee lacked requisite qualification both in terms of Section 13 of the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 and the ‘UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018’. His academic performance was very bad.
(iii) The 3rd respondent does not have good credentials as are required for the high office of the Vice Chancellor of a University and that he has some criminal antecedents too.
In support of his submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court.
3. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate; the Chancellor of the University & the University are represented by their Panel Advocates; and the 3rd respondent against whom a Writ of Quo Warranto is sought for is represented by his private counsel. The Chancellor of the University and the University together have filed a common Statement of Objections on 15.03.2023. The 3rd respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2023 for the rejection of the writ petitions. The respondent–UGC spoke through its panel counsel. The UOI is represented by the learned CGC. All the learned advocates appearing for the answering respondents vehemently opposed the petitions making submission in justification of the appointment to the office in question. The contesting respondents too have relied upon a few Rulings in support of their stand.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(I) FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD:
(b) Several candidates including the 3rd respondent in these petitions had staked their claim. The Committee having held deliberations concluded the selection proceedings vide report dated 24.09.2022 short-listing names of three of the persons in the fray. These were Prof. Anand Deshpande (the then sitting Registrar of VTU), Prof. Gopal Mugeraya (the Director of NIT, Goa) and Prof. S.Vidyashankar i.e., 3rd respondent herein (the then sitting Vice Chancellor of KSOU, Mysuru). The Chancellor issued the Notification dated 29.09.2022 appointing the 3rd respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent– University.
(c) The case in W.P.No.21681/2022 has been filed by Prof. B.Shivaraj on 31.10.2022 and the companion case in W.P.No.23349/2022 has been filed by Dr.K.Mahadev on 21.11.2022. Both these cases are represented
A litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all relevant facts. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the action without examining the merits ....
The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a University must be made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, which are mandatory and binding on the State Government. A person who is connected wi....
The court upheld that the appointment process followed statutory provisions, and the involvement of the Minister did not invalidate the appointment, establishing judicial review limits in administrat....
The UGC Regulations, 2018 prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
The court affirmed that the eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor under the Bikaner Technical University Act, 2017, must be strictly adhered to, and that findings from an inve....
The UGC Regulations-2010, while important, are not mandatory for all universities and higher educational institutions, and the expertise of the search committee in making selections is crucial.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
