C. BASAVARAJU Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as a full time lecturer in the 1st Respondent -University on 30.10.1996. He was appointed as a Reader through direct selection on 31.1.2003. He has completed M.A., LL.M. and he has been awarded Ph.D.degree in Social Justice under the Indian Constitution. By a notification dated 22.10.2003 the Petitioner came to be nominated as a Dean of faculty of law under Section 21 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pursuant to the approval given by the Vice -Chancellor. Annexure -B is the said notification. According to the Petitioner, as is clear from the notification the term of Deanship is for a period of two years, hence his term shall expire only on 22.10.2005.

(2.) THE University has issued a notification as per Annexure -A nominating the 3rd Respondent as Dean of Faculty of law, in the 1st Respondent -University. The grievance of the Petitioner is that as per Annexure -B he is entitled to continue to hold the office of Dean for a period of two years from the date of his nomination which expires on 22.10.2005, which is now been curtailed by the University by the impugned notification. It is contended that prior to the appointment of the Petitioner, the 3rd Respondent had already completed two terms of Deanship in the University as the said post is to be held on rotation. Before passing the impugned notification, the Petitioner has not been heard and no proper notice was given, hence, the impugned notification is violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) AFTER filing of the writ petition, this Court has granted interim order of stay for a period of four weeks on 25.5.2004 which has been extended from time to time. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent has filed an application for vacating the interim order. The 3rd Respondent contends that only in the event of non -availability of a Professor under Section 21(1) of the Act, a Reader could be nominated to act as Dean. As there was no professor in the legal Faculty of the University, the 3rd Respondent being the senior most Reader was appointed as Dean for two terms. The 3rd Respondent has been appointed as Professor on 9.1.2004 and therefore, the Petitioner cannot continue as Dean. Hence, the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as Dean is in accordance with law. The nomination of the Petitioner as Dean is illegal because he was not the senior most Reader in the legal Faculty. The Petitioner has no vested right to continue as a Dean. There is no illegality in the nomination of the 3rd Respondent and therefore the Petitioner has no right to challenge the said order and sought for vacating the interim order.