K JANARDHANAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a member of Scheduled Caste (as argued) and a professor with attractive qualifications has put in 32 years of spotless service; he claims to have officially guided several researchers of doctoral degrees; he is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the order dated 8.1.2020 (wrongly printed as 8.2.2020) issued by the respondent- Government at Annexure-D whereby, he has been removed from the office of Registrar (Evaluation) of the second respondent University, within less than a year of appointment; after service of notice, the Respondent State having entered appearance through the learned AGA has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petition; the answering respondent University is represented by it's Senior Panel Counsel, who assisted the court, maintaining equi-distance from the battling parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner finds fault with the impugned order because: (i) the same is made unreasonably, arbitrarily & unjustly; (ii) Government is whimsical in it's action apart from being vindictive; (iii) even otherwise, there is no reason for petitioner's abrupt removal; learned AGA justifies the impugned order contending that (i) section 18 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereafter "Act") vests unbridled power of appointment in the Govt; (ii) the said section does not prescribe any tenure; (iii) the very appointment order itself says "until further orders"; and (iv) the Registrars (Evaluation) in all the universities in the State hold their office during the "pleasure of the Government" and therefore, can be removed at any time.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, and also having adverted only to the relevant Rulings cited at the Bar, this Court grants indulgence in the matter for the following discussion: