CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES Vs. SHARATH ANANTHAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are filed challenging the order dtd. 21/6/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9068/2023 c/w Writ Petition No.11875/2023.

(2.) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the Notification dtd. 23/3/2023, whereby His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka and Chancellor of Universities was pleased to appoint Prof.Lokanath N.K as Vice Chancellor of University of Mysore, Mysuru for a period of four years with effect from the date of assumption of office, have approached the learned Single Judge. Vide order dtd. 21/6/2023, the learned Single Judge by way of an interim order stayed the said notification dtd. 23/3/2023 until further orders.

(3.) By inviting our attention to the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2023, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective appellants made the following submissions: Firstly, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the respondents in the writ petitions, in spite of availing various opportunities, failed to file their statement of objections may not be in consonance with the order sheet. It is submitted that the petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge hardly on two occasions after issuance of notice and as such, it cannot be said that in spite of various opportunities, the respondents failed to file statement of objections. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.847/2023 (respondent No.5 before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9068/2023) submits that the statement of objections was filed by the appellant on 26/6/2023. The second submission is that while passing the interim order in the nature of grant of stay to the Notification dtd. 23/3/2023, the learned Single Judge has noticed that, prima facie, the procedure contemplated under Sec. 14 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and UGC Regulation were not followed by the respondent-Authorities before issuing notification dtd. 23/3/2023. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have reached to that prima facie observation before considering the submissions of the respective contesting respondents. Such observation would be a premature observation and it may lead to create an impression over the parties that the learned Single Judge has formed certain opinion and such impression may cause prejudice to the respondents.