2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24213

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
Ramya H.N. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26495 of 2025 (S-RES)

Headnote:(A) Universities of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009 - Sections 7(10) and 13(xiii) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 226 - Writ of Mandamus - State Government's power over University appointments - Autonomy of Universities. (Para 6 and 12)

(B) Service Law - Appointment - Legality of State Government's rejection of University's proposal for reappointment - Government's order must be reasoned and not cryptic - Remand for reconsideration in light of relevant judgments. (Paras 18 and 20)

(C) Judicial Review - Appellate Court's role - Not to substitute its view unless the decision is perverse or illegal. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the example)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Professor by the University. Her appointment was challenged and quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in a previous writ petition. The University's Board of Management subsequently passed a resolution to reappoint the Petitioner on humanitarian grounds, considering her service of 11.5 years. The University sought the advice/approval of the State Government. The State Government rejected the proposal via a letter dated 03.09.2025, which was a cryptic, non-speaking order stating that the Petitioner had been unsuccessful in earlier litigation. Based on this, the University issued an endorsement rejecting the Petitioner's request for reappointment. The Petitioner challenged both the State Government's letter and the University's endorsement.

Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the State Government's letter and the University's endorsement. It held that the State Government's decision was unreasoned and did not consider the University's resolution or the cited judgments. The matter was remitted back to the State Government for reconsideration, directing it to pass a speaking order in light of relevant judgments and Section 7(10) of the Act of 2009, which empowers the University to create posts and appoint persons. The Court also directed the University to communicate the decision and take further steps. (Paras 18 and 20)

Issues: The main issues were whether the State Government's rejection of the University's proposal to reappoint the Petitioner was valid and whether the State Government had the power to reject such a proposal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State Government's order must be reasoned and consider the specific facts and legal submissions. A cryptic and non-speaking order rejecting a University's resolution cannot be sustained. The University has the power to appoint persons to sanctioned posts under Section 7(10) of the Act of 2009, though this aspect is to be considered by the State on remand.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned endorsements and communications quashed. Matter remitted to the State Government for fresh consideration within six weeks. (Para 20)

(C) University autonomy - State cannot issue directions in matters covered by the University Act. (Para 12 of the judgment, citing W.A.No.968/1998)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 or other relevant laws - Not applicable in this case. (E) Relevant Laws - See Section 7(10) and Section 13(xiii) of the Universities of Agricultural Sciences Act, 2009. (F) Judicial Review - See the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions. (G) Constitutional Law - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Arbitrary action is violative of the rule of law. (H) Regularization of Service - Long service can be a ground for regularization. (Paras 30 and 31 of W.A.No.705/2024 & Con. Matters) (I) Service Law - Termination of service - Unseating a person who has served continuously for a significant period may be inhuman. (Para 16 of the judgment, citing Board's decision) (J) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Courts can interfere if a decision is unreasoned or arbitrary. [Please note: The headnote has been structured to include points from the judgment and the provided example, as applicable. ## Task 2: Main Legal Point A State Government's rejection of a University's resolution must be a reasoned, non-cryptic order, considering the University's powers under its Act. An unreasoned order is arbitrary and subject to judicial review. ## Task 3: Classification Category: Service Law Sub-category: Appointment and Regularization ## Task 4: Keywords ["University Autonomy", "Reappointment", "Unreasoned Order", "Judicial Review", "Humanitarian Grounds", "Service Conditions", "Administrative Law", "Crypto Order", "Non-Speaking Order", "Power of University"] ```

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks writ of mandamus for reappointment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. previous litigation quashed initial appointment; directed recalculation of marks. (Para 3)
3. parties' arguments on selection process and applicable law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. government cannot issue directions on service conditions covered by statute. (Para 12)
5. seniority not sole criterion for temporary appointments. (Para 13)
6. government approval not required for pension schemes of autonomous bodies. (Para 14)
7. long service and parity justify regularization despite lack of sanction. (Para 15)
8. state's rejection unreasoned; matter remitted for reconsideration. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the resolution passed by the Board of Management of the Respondent-University in its 406^th Meeting held on 23.04.2025, as evident from letter dated 21.05.2025 as per Annexure-C, forthwith and without awaiting further approval from the Government;

b) Alternatively, direct the respondent-Government permitting to implement the resolution dated

23.04.2025 and to appoint the petitioner in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Court in W.A.No.968/1998 (Annexure-F), and the Apex Court, including two decisions rendered by the KAT in Application No.1392/2023 (Annexure-D) and RA No.112/2024 (Annexure-E)

c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to implement the decision of this Hon’ble Court dated 23.09.2023 in W.P.No.18512/2023 as per Annexure-

B.

d) Pass any appropriate writ or orders or any other directions in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

e) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 30.10.2025 as per Annexure-J as arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is in violation of principles of nature justice;

f) Declare that the State Government has no power to reject the proposal sent by the University and the Respondent – University may be directed to implement the resolution in its 406^th meeting held on

23.04.2025 in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Professor of Agricultural University in respondent Nos.2 and 3 - University. The appointment of the petitioner was challenged by one Smt. Prakruthi N. Rajgangadkar in W.P.No.9340/2013, in which the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.4 and the said petition came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order dated 18.04.2023, directing and quashing the appointment of the petitioner herein to the post of Assistant Professor reserved for Women-GM and directed to recalculate the marks as hereunder:

“The petitioner is challenging order of appointment dates 28.09.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent, (Annexure- A), appointing the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor, reserved for Women (GM) in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, interalia, sought for appointment to the said post strictly in terms of the scorecard guidelines prescribed by the University of Agricultural Science (Annexure-C).

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, the respondent-University has issued notification dated 06.03.2012, to fill up various posts in different departments including four posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering as per notification produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. The respondent-University has issued guidelines and procedure for selection to the post of Professor/Teacher, dated 03.12.2007 (Annexure-C) to the writ petition. The petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent had appeared for interview and i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document