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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40784

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
DR. R K SOMASHEKHAR – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP 12614/2020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 12614 OF 2020 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR. R K SOMASHEKHAR RETIRED PROFESSOR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE G KALEGOWDA R/O NO.1492, 7TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 040.

Digitally sign ed by …PETITIONER SUNITHA K S (BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COURT AND:

OF KARNATAKA

1. REGISTRAR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU - 560 056.

2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SECURE THE RECORD; DIRECT THE R-1 TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION DATED 06.03.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE SYNDICATE OF R-1 UNIVERSITY IN ITS 140TH PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-1 TO REIMBURSE ALL THE BENEFITS INCLUDING MONETARY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FOR WHICH HE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED, SINCE HE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RETIRED AS DEAN OF SCIENCE AND ALSO A MEMBER OF SYNDICATE AT R-1 UNIVERSITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to implement the resolution dated 06.03.2018 as per Annexure-K passed by the Syndicate of the first respondent University in its 140th proceedings and further direct the first respondent to reimburse all the benefits including monetary and other benefits to the petitioner for which the petitioner is legally entitled, since he ought to have been retired as Dean of Science and also a member of Syndicate at first respondent University.

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

i) The petitioner joined first Respondent University as a faculty member in the Department of Botany on 10.10.1983. Prior to that appointment in first Respondent University, he has worked as a Lecturer in Botany at Mysore University from 30.01.1980 till 10.10.1983. Pursuant to the clarification of the second Respondent Government, petitioner was placed in the Senior Scale, with effect from 31.01.1986 instead of 10.10.1988. On 31.01.1994, the petitioner was promoted as Reader in first Respondent University. On 12.07.2007, 18 lecturers with Ph.D. holding, and 9 years of service, are promoted as a Readers without insisting 5 years of service on Senior Scale. The petitioner, having noticed the fact of promotion, requested the Additional Chief Secretary by way of objections with relevant documents on 28.01.2016 to consider the petitioner for promotion. The second Respondent/ Government directed the first Respondent/ University to consider the petitioner for re-fixation, which was not complied, and then the second Respondent- Government issued another direction on 07.12.2016. Pursuant to the direction issued by the second Respondent Government, the Syndicate of the first Respondent University resolved at Item No.26 in its 132nd proceedings considered to re-fix the seniority list of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a set of representations on 30.07.2018 and on 23.06.2020 to implement the 140th proceedings of the resolution and the University has not implemented the syndicate resolution till today. Hence, this writ petition.

ii) The first Respondent University filed a statement of objections contending that while passing a resolution in 140th proceedings, the University did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 53 of the Karnataka State University Act, 2000. Hence, the University did not implement the said resolution. Hence, on this ground, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

iii) The petitioner filed

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