SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
Dr. Ravikumar B.C., S/o. Late B.S. Channakeshavaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Department Of Medical Education, Represented By Its Principal Secretary - Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 32965 of 2025 (S-RES)
Decided On : 24-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, Sr. Counsel for Sri Satish K., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Reuben Jacob, AAG A/W Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA, Sri. Preetham Jude Correa, Advocate.

Temporary appointments in autonomous institutions do not confer permanent status or lien, maintaining the original cadre's substantive post as the employee's right.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2013 - Appointment of Principal - The petitioner, previously appointed as Principal and Director, was reverted to a Professor's post based on the amendments to recruitment rules that stipulate administrative positions are temporary with no permanent lien - The appointment of the petitioner as Principal from 2014 was 'until further orders', reflecting a temporary assignment, thus does not confer permanent status - Selection Committee's recommendation to appoint another Principal was valid under new rules - The principles of natural justice do not apply as there’s no civil consequence for the petitioner, given the nature of his appointment. (Paras 10, 13, 15, 18, 31, 51)

(B) Administrative Appointments - Positions such as Principal in autonomous Medical Institutions are temporary and subject to review, thus the lien on the original substantive post remains with the Professor role. (Paras 36, 49)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed his right to continue as Principal citing that his initial appointment was substantive. He challenged an order by the Selection Committee denying him this position based on a change in recruitment rules introducing tenure limits.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the Selection Committee's decision and the amendments to recruitment rules, confirming the petitioner maintained a lien solely on his substantive post as a Professor.

Issues: Whether the petitioner retained a right to his position as Principal after amendments constituted a change in policy regarding appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that appointments ‘until further orders’ are inherently temporary and do not establish a permanent status, ensuring that any role does not impede the employee's adherence to their substantive cadre.

Result: The writ petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) To call for records from respondents pertaining to the impugned order dated 30/10/2025 (Annexure-W) quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 bearing No.Med 12 Kum 2025, passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-W) and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to continue the petitioner as Principal, Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Professor in the Department of Dermatology at respondent No.2 Institute on 31.07.2006 and he reported for duty on 01.08.2006. The Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2013 (‘Rules of 2013’, for short) for teaching staff of respondent No.2 - Institute, have been framed by respondent No.3, in accordance with the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of 2013. A Notification was issued inviting the eligible candidates for a walk-in interview for the said post, prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience, on 26.07.2014. In continuation of the said Notification, the petitioner was called for an interview scheduled on 31.07.2014 before the Director of Medical Education, Bengaluru. The petitioner was appointed as Principal on 13.10.2014. Respondent No.3 issued an order appointing the petitioner as a Director (in charge) of Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan with effect from 14.09.2015 for three years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

4. On 26.12.2019, the petitioner was appointed as a Director and Dean of Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan, for four years with effect from the said date. In 2023, the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of respondent No.2 Institute were amended. One Dr.Santhosh S.V., Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry, Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, was placed in-charge, Director and Dean of the Institute until the post is filled on a regular basis or until further orders, whichever is earlier, while directing the petitioner to continue in his substantive post as a Professor, Department of Dermatology, on 22.12.2023.

5. Respondent No.2 amended its Memorandum of Association and Bye-laws in 2024.

6. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2023, placing Dr.Santhosh S.V. as the in-charge Director and Dean of the Institute, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 04.01.2024 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical Education seeking restoration of his lien over the post of Principal. Pursuant to which, vide order dated 09.02.2024, the earlier order dated 22.12.2023 was modified, directing that the petitioner shall continue in the post of Principal, Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan.

7. When things stood thus, a Meeting of the Selection Committee was conveyed on 30.10.2025, under the chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, to consider the appointment to the post of Principal, Hassan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hassan. As recorded in the Minutes of the said Meeting, the Committee took note that the petitioner was continued as the Principal pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2024. However, in light of the amendment to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules introducing a fixed tenure for the post, the Committee resolved not to consider the petitioner for continuation in the said service and instead, recommended the appointment of Dr. Kavita C.V., i.e., respondent No.4 as the Principal, for 3 years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

8. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of Selection Committee dated 30.10.2025, filed this writ petition.

9. The respondent-Institution has not filed the statement of objections.

10. The respondent-State filed its statement of objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liabl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top