C KRISHNA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is presently working as a Director, Department of physical Education in the 1st respondent-University. The 1st respondent-University issued a notification dated 27-11-1995 calling for application for filling up of certain teaching and non-teaching posts as per Annexure-C. It is in pursuance of the said notification petitioner had applied for the post of Director in the Department of Physical Education which is a non-teaching post. Subsequently, the Board of Appointment for Non-Teaching Posts constituted by the University under the provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') conducted an interview on 15-5-1997 and in that petitioner was found to be eligible and he was selected. He was required to undergo probation for a period of two years which he satisfactorily completed on 24-4-2000. Petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 8th February, 2002, Annexure-A, by the 1st respondent calling upon him to show cause within 15 days as to why his appointment should not be cancelled stating that the said post should have been filled up by a qualified person having Ph. D. , qualification and the Government, the 2nd respondent, as per annexure-E, the impugned order herein, has annulled the petitioner's appointment.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that as on the date of his appointment he did possess the requisite qualification and the prescribed Ph. D. , was a subsequent requirement and therefore there is no invalidity in the appointment to the said post. It is also contended that as per annexure-B, Government Order, the Government has annulled the appointment of the petitioner and as a mere formality it was directed the University to issue a notice to the petitioner giving him 15 days and after receiving reply initiate proceedings for dismissing him from service and therefore he contends that the Order at Annexure-B is in violation of principles of natural justice as he was not heard before passing the order. The so-called directions to follow the principles of natural is only an empty formality as seen from the subsequent direction issued by the government to the University to terminate the service of the petitioner. Therefore he contends that the impugned orders Annexures-A and B are liable to be quashed.

(3.) AFTER service of notice the University has entered appearance. They contend that Annexure-A came to be issued in obedience to the directions issued by the Government where they had directed the university to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner pointing out to him that he did not possess the requisite qualification and after hearing reply from him, terminate his services. They are bound to follow the directions given by the Government and therefore submits that no blame could be laid at the doors of the University.