N.RAMACHANDRA SWAMY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was an aspirant to the office of Vice- Chancellor of Mysore University is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Notification bearing No.GS 21 MUM 2016 dtd. 16/11/2018 issued by the first respondent, by which, the 4th respondent is appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ganesh Gowda for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.M.C.Nagashree for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.Vinayaka B., for respondent No.4.

(3.) The petitioner is a Ph.D Holder from the elite CFTRI, Mysore and who has also completed Post Doctoral Research from University of Athens, Atlanta, USA and also from Rosewell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalor, New York, U.S.A. He was working as Professor in Biochemistry at Bangalore University. In pursuance of the Notification dtd. 3/10/2018 Annexure-A, the petitioner applied for the post of Vice- Chancellor, Mysore University. The Search Committee appointed by the Government short listed three persons i.e., Prof.N.S.Ashok Kumar, Prof.C.P.Siddasharma and Prof.R.K.Somashekar. Thereafter, the Government recommended the name of Prof.C.P.Siddasharma to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University. The Chancellor differed with the recommendation of the State Government and had returned the file to the Government for fresh recommendation. The State Government thereafter constituted fresh Search Committee to suggest the panel of names to the office of Vice-Chancellor. Again the name of Prof.C.P.Siddasharma was recommended. Again, the Chancellor differed with the recommendation of the State Government and the proposal was returned. Thereafter, the Search Committee submitted fresh panel of names for recommendation to the Government. The Panel had suggested Dr.Hemanth Kumar G., Dr.Hosetti B.B. and Dr.Midatala Rani. The recommendation forwarded by the State Government was approved by the Chancellor under the impugned Notification dtd. 16/11/2018 as per Annexure-C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no proper consideration by the Search Committee insofar as the petitioner's case is concerned. It is his submission that the petitioner is having higher qualification and is more meritorious than the 4th respondent who is appointed as Vice-Chancellor under the impugned Notification. The petitioner is having clean record as far as his academic qualification and also his Administrative experience of more than 8 years. The petitioner also possesses qualification of Post Doctoral Fellowship from USA. It is also contended that apart from the merit, the Chancellor also should look into the equity as well as social justice. The petitioner being Scheduled Caste person, ought to have been considered for appointment as Vice-Chancellor, Mysore University. It is his submission that the petitioner is fully qualified and was eligible for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. But the case of the petitioner was ignored without there being any reason.