SANGAMESH A. PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAK UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD, DR. G.B. NANDANA AND VICE CHANCELLOR KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order passed by the 1st respondent, as at Annexure -A, appointing the 3rd respondent, in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) as the Registrar of the. 2nd respondent -Karnataka University (for short, referred to as 'University') has been assailed in this writ petition. Writ Petition No. 63899/2012 filed by the petitioner, questioning the appointment of Dr. S.B. Hinchigeri, as the Registrar of the University was allowed on 05.09.2012 and the impugned order therein was quashed. The 4th respondent therein was directed to be relieved from the post of Registrar and, in his place, the petitioner was directed to be taken on duty as Registrar, in terms of an Official memorandum bearing No. ED 55 UKV 2012 dated 30.05.2012. Writ Appeal No. 30956/2012 filed by the State of Karnataka, as against the said order was disposed of as withdrawn on 11.02.2013, in view of the statement made on behalf of the appellant therein, that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) GOVERNMENT having issued an order dated 29.12.2012 and appointed the third respondent as the Registrar of the Karnataka University at Dharwad, petitioner filed W.P. No. 75002/2013. When the mater came up for consideration, a statement was made by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Registrar of the University would be reconsidered in the light of the provision of Section 17 of the Act and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, recording the submission, writ petition was accepted and the impugned order appointing the 3rd respondent as Registrar of the University was set aside. State of Karnataka was set at liberty to reconsider the appointment to the post of Registrar of the University in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. It was made clear that the State of Karnataka shall consider the petitioner, 3rd respondent and such other eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Registrar of the University. The petitioner was allowed to continue to hold the post of Registrar of the University till the exercise, as directed, is completed. Contentions urged in the writ petition were kept open and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of on 16.01.2013. Petitioner filed W.A. No. 30109/2013 questioning the said order, insofar as the direction issued, to reconsider the case of the 3rd respondent for appointment to the post of Registrar of the University. The said writ appeal, upon consideration was dismissed by a judgment dated 22.01.2013.

(3.) SHRI . H. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner made two - fold submission. The first one is with regard to the alleged ineligibility of the 3rd respondent for being appointed as Registrar of the University and the second one is with regard to non -consideration of the case of the petitioner in the manner directed in the order dated 16.01.2013 passed in W.P. No. 75002/2013. In the view I would be taking, it is unnecessary to consider the submission with regard to the alleged ineligibility of 3rd respondent, since, it will be for the 1st respondent to consider the said aspect when the process of appointment is again taken up.