Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 30806
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
M. Raghunandana – Appellant
Versus
Bangalore University – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 36575 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H.R. Ananthakrishnamurthy
For the Respondents: G.S. Venkat Subbarao, N. Kempegowda
An administrative decision to assign or withdraw an 'in-charge' or 'current duty charge' does not constitute an appointment, confers no vested rights upon the incumbent, and is generally not subject to judicial interference unless it results in financial loss or prejudice to substantive service conditions.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka State University Act, 2000 - Section 29 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - In-charge arrangement - Entrustment of current duty charge - Whether creates vested right - Petitioner was assigned additional duties of University Librarian as an interim arrangement - University subsequently replaced petitioner with another professor for same in-charge capacity - Held, holding an in-charge/current duty charge post is a purely administrative/policy decision and does not confer any vested or accrued right to the incumbent; it is not equivalent to a regular, temporary, or permanent appointment. (Paras 7 and 9)
(B) Judicial Review - Interference in administrative orders - Writ jurisdiction - Petitioner challenged order replacing him as in-charge Librarian - Held, an employee has no right to demand or stick to a ‘current duty charge’ post, and such administrative arrangements that cause no financial loss or service prejudice are not subject to interference under Article 226. (Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a professor at the respondent-University, was placed in-charge of the post of University Librarian following the superannuation of the regular librarian. This was an interior interim arrangement. Subsequently, the University Syndicate resolved to relieve the petitioner of the in-charge duties and assign them to the second respondent. The petitioner challenged this replacement as contrary to university statutes.
Findings of Court:
The court found the appointment of an in-charge librarian to be a purely administrative/policy exercise falling within the Syndicate's powers under the relevant university act. The petitioner’s service conditions and substantive post were not affected, and no legal injury was established.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has a vested right to continue as an in-charge Librarian and whether the administrative decision to replace him warrants interference under writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: An administrative arrangement placing an employee in-charge of a post in addition to their regular duties is not an appointment and creates no vested rights; therefore, the court will not interfere with such policy decisions in the absence of prejudice or financial loss. Result : Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition and the factual context of the interim librarian arrangement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of respondent contentions regarding the non-permanent nature of the assignment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. distinction between a formal appointment and an interim administrative arrangement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. limitation of writ jurisdiction over purely administrative and policy-based interim arrangements. (Para 10 , 11) |
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER ORDER, QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS DT: 03.04.2025 UNDER ANNEXURE-N APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN IN CLAUSE-7 WHEREIN SRI. B.D. GANGARAJU, RAMESH BABU AND M. MAHADEV NAIK PROPOSED THERON NAYAK SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS CHIEF LIBRARIAN AND HE WAS APPOINTED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“ i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, quashing the proceedings dt: 03.04.2025 bearing No. ACA 2/V.V.Pa.Saa.Sabhe/2024-25 under Annexure-N appointing the 2nd Respondent University Librarian in Clause-7 wherein Sri. B.D.Gangaraju, Ramesh Baabu and M. Mahadev Niak proposed thereon Nayak should be appointed as Chief Librarian and he was appointed.
ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other order, quashing the Ref. U.O.No.est-I/e2/Liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to seek vacation / modification of this order.inc/2024, issued by the Respondent No.1 Bangalore University dated: 03.04.2025, vide Annexrue-N1; and
iii) For costs and any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in respondent No.1-University on 12.02.2020 and thereafter, promoted as Professor and appointed as Chairman, Department of Library and Information Science on 28.12.2022. At that time, one Dr.B.R.Radhakrishna was working as University Librarian of the respondent No.1-University till he attained the age of superannuation, pursuant to which, the petitioner was placed as in-charge Librarian by way of interim arrangement dated 31.01.2024 under which he was asked to discharge the duties of the University Librarian in addition to his regular duties until further orders. Subsequently, respondent No.1-University made one more in-charge/interim arrangement dated 03.04.2025 relieving the petitioner from performing his duties as in-charge Librarian and placed the respondent No.2 as an in-charge Librarian instead of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 appointing respondent No.2 as in-charge Librarian, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the impugned order is contrary to the statutes pertaining to respondent No.1-University and opposed to law.
3. The respondents have filed the statement of objections and contested the petition interalia contending that placing the petitioner to perform the duties of an in-charge Librarian was only an interim arrangement, which was purely an administrative decision without any order of appointment and subsequently, in the Special Meeting of the Syndicate of the University dated 04.02.2025 and the 179th meeting of the Syndicate dated 06.03.2025, it was resolved and decided to relieve the petitioner and place respondent No.2 as the in-charge Librarian. It was submitted that placing the petitioner as an in-charge Librarian in addition to his regular duties was only an interim arrangement and not an appointment/transfer/deputation and the same did not prescribe any tenure and the respondent No.1-University thought it fit to modify the interim arrangement and relieve the petitioner as an in-charge Librarian and appoint respondent No.2 as an in-charge Librarian by passing the impugn
