The appointment of acting Vice-Chancellor must adhere to statutory provisions, prioritizing seniority as mandated by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged a notification bearing No.GS-07-MCU-2024 dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 by which, the respondent No.3 was appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 - University. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to appoint him as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 - University.

2.......

(i) The facts of the case as stated in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as the Director of the School of Humanities and Liberal Arts in respondent No.4 - University in terms of an order dated 10.10.2023. The incumbent Vice- Chancellor of respondent No.4 was appointed on 07.11.2020. On completion of the term of four years as prescribed under Section 14 (6) of the KARNATAKA STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT , 2000 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 2000'), the senior most Director in respondent No.4 namely, Dr. Ushadevi C., was appointed by the respondent No.2 as the acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 in terms of the notification dated 08.11.2024. As Dr. Ushadevi C., attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2025, her tenure as the acting Vice-Chancellor also came to an end on 31.03.2025. In the meanwhile, the Special Secretary to respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 14.10.2024 to respondent No.4 seeking a list of senior most Directors of respondent No.4 to make arrangements for appointing an in-charge Vice-Chancellor under Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000. The Under Secretary to respondent No.2 also sought for information as to whether there were any criminal cases/judicial enquiries/departmental enquiries or any other enquiries pending or intended to be imposed against the Directors working at respondent No.4.

(ii) The petitioner contends that the then Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4 addressed a reply dated 23.10.2024 and forwarded a list of senior most Directors, who were working in various Schools in respondent No.4. As per the said list, the name of the petitioner was at the top of the list as he was appointed as the Director on 16.10.2023. The respondent No.4 also addressed a letter dated 10.02.2025 to the Special Secretary to the respondent No.2 furnishing the list of senior most Directors of various schools in respondent No.4. The petitioner contends that he was the senior most Director eligible to be appointed as acting Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned notification dated 28.03.2025 and appointed the respondent No.3, the senior most woman Professor of the Department of Zoology as acting Vice-Chancellor.

3. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The petitioner contends that as per Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, when a vacancy in the office of the Vice- Chancellor remains unfilled, the senior most Dean available in the University as the Chancellor may appoint, shall act as Vice- Chancellor and the person so appointed shall have all the powers and shall be entitled to all the privileges of the Vice- Chancellor and to such emoluments and allowances as may be determined by the Chancellor in accordance with the Statutes, if any, framed. He therefore, contends that though he was senior most Director and though respondent No.3 was not the senior most Dean or Director in the University she was appointed as an acting Vice C