C. BASAVARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on 12.07.2007 as Professor of Law by the University of Mysore. He was granted annual increments. In exercise of the power under S.17 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'), he was appointed on 24.06.2013 vide order as at Annexure-E, as Registrar, University of Mysore. W.P.No.8063/2014 filed to declare that he is deemed to have been confirmed with effect from 11.07.2009 in the post of Professor of Law was allowed in part and the impugned communication therein was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the grievance stated in a representation dated 25.01.2014. By an order dated 29.03.2014, as at Annexure-A, the order as at Annexure-E was withdrawn. The petitioner having been restored to the post of Professor of Law, assailing the legality of the order as at Annexure-A, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned advocate, submitted that the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Registrar by the State Government is that the person should be an Officer not below the rank of Group-A Officer of the super-time scale or a member of faculty of any University working as a Professor at least for five years and since the petitioner had completed, as on 11.07.2012, more than five years service as Professor and had the required experience as Professor of an University, was appointed on 24.06.2013, as Registrar. According to Sri M.S. Bhagwat, respondent No.1 having considered all the relevant facts passed the order as at Annexure-E. He submitted that there is no allegation on the petitioner as having concealed any fact or the commission of any fraudulent act in the matter of his appointment as Registrar. He contended that the impugned order is vitiated as the respondent No.1 has failed to afford any opportunity to the petitioner to represent against the order proposed to be made. He further contended that even if the order in question is considered as administrative one, as the same involves civil consequences and the proceeding having not been conducted consistent with the rules of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed on the basis of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DR. (Ms.) BINAPANI DEI, 1967 2 SCR 625. Learned counsel submitted that, since the impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and legal mala fides, interference is called for.

(3.) Sri H. Kantharaja, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Smt. M.S. Prathima, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Registrar, because his probationary period has not been declared as satisfactory by the Appointing Authority and the One Man Commission report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. Rangavittalachar, appointed for looking into the irregularities and the violations in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts of Professors and other teaching staff in Mysore University, under the provisions of the Act is pending consideration by the Government. He submitted that the Government is examining the issues relating to gross violation of UGC norms and State directives on Roster policy and eligibility criteria for annulling the decision of the Syndicate approving the appointments under S.10 of the Act. He submitted that the University of Mysore, by a communication dated 24.06.2013, reported to the Government that the probationary period of the petitioner has not been declared in view of the irregularity in the recruitment and that W.P.No.4114/2014 (PIL) was filed questioning the Notification appointing the petitioner as Registrar. He submitted that the Government on re6 examination of the issue in detail, felt that the order appointing the petitioner as Registrar, was improper and the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, having submitted a note for withdrawal of the said order (Annexure-E) for correction of the mistake, the issue was explained over telephone, by the Principal Secretary to Government, to the Hon'ble Minister for Higher Education, as the Minister was out of station and instructions having been taken for withdrawal of the order dated 24.06.2013 and the said note having been approved by the Principal Secretary, the order dated 29.03.2014, as at Annexure-A was issued. He submitted that the probationary period of the petitioner having not been declared as satisfactory, the appointment of the petitioner as Registrar being improper and the appointment also being not for any particular period, decision taken to withdraw the order as at Annexure-E, by issuance of the impugned Government Order as at Annexure-A, cannot be said to be either arbitrary, unlawful or illegal.