GOVINDARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners nominated members to the Syndicate of the second respondent-University are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned notification bearing No.E-.PÀæ. ÀA:Er 254 AiÀÄÄ ((THELAW)) 2021 dtd. 7/4/2022 [Annexure-D] of the first respondent-Government withdrawing the petitioners' nomination and nominating respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the Syndicate of the second respondent-University and also notification bearing No.J ï ÉÊJ ï/J ï1/ ÀÄ Àgï gÀZÀ É/1/2021-22 dtd. 7/4/2022 of the second respondent-University relieving the petitioners from Syndicate membership.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent-State Government nominated the petitioners as members of the Syndicate of the second respondent- University in exercise of its power under Sec. 28 [1][g] read with Sec. 39[1] of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 [for short "2000 Act"] by notification dtd. 10/12/2019 [Annexure-A]. The petitioner No.1 was nominated under Schedule Caste category in terms of Sec. 28[1][g][i] and second petitioner is nominated under Religious Minority category in terms of Sec. 28[1][g][iv] of 2000 Act. It is stated that from the date of nomination, petitioners are discharging their duties as members of Syndicate. The term of office of nomination of the Syndicate members is three years or until further orders whichever is earlier. Even before expiry of three years period, the first respondent-State Government issued Annexure-D notification dtd. 7/4/2022 withdrawing the nomination of the petitioners in exercise of its power under Sec. 39[1] of 2000 Act and nominated the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the place of petitioners. Consequent to withdrawal of the nomination of petitioners by the first respondent, second respondent issued notification dtd. 7/4/2022 relieving the petitioners as Syndicate members. Challenging both the notifications of the first and second respondents, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Vikram Huilgol for Sri.Rahamathulla Kothwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.R.Subramanya along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.M.Vinod Kumar for respondent No.1, Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Sunil Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the writ petition papers.