PROF. B. SHIVARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court essentially for a writ of quo warranto for the removal of 3rd respondent from the office of Vice Chancellor of the 5th respondent -University.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the subject appointment is liable to be voided for the following reasons:

(3.) After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate; the Chancellor of the University & the University are represented by their Panel Advocates; and the 3rd respondent against whom a Writ of Quo Warranto is sought for is represented by his private counsel. The Chancellor of the University and the University together have filed a common Statement of Objections on 15/3/2023. The 3rd respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2023 for the rejection of the writ petitions. The respondent -UGC spoke through its panel counsel. The UOI is represented by the learned CGC. All the learned advocates appearing for the answering respondents vehemently opposed the petitions making submission in justification of the appointment to the office in question. The contesting respondents too have relied upon a few Rulings in support of their stand.