PROF. M.MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has brought into question the order issued by the Hon'ble Chancellor (respondent No.2) appointing respondent No.4 as the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.5-University. This appointment was made under the authority granted by Sec. 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Search Committee, constituted under Sec. 14 of the Act, had recommended three names: the petitioner, respondent No.4, and one Professor Krishna. The petitioner's grievance centers on the allegation that respondent No.4 secured his appointment by submitting a fraudulent caste certificate claiming to belong to the 'Gond' caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. Despite this, the Hon'ble Chancellor proceeded with the appointment, allegedly ignoring the petitioner's submissions and the accompanying investigation report from the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, which confirmed that the caste certificate was fake.

(2.) Following the receipt of a complaint from an advocate named Manjunath regarding respondent No.4's false caste certificate, the Hon'ble Chancellor instructed respondent No.6, the Deputy Commissioner, to investigate the matter and submit a report. The Deputy Commissioner, in response, affirmed that the issue concerning the false caste certificate was under review by the District Caste Verification Committee. The petitioner also provided evidence from school records indicating that respondent No.4 was historically recognized as belonging to the Kuruba Hindu caste, not a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner asserts that the Hon'ble Chancellor's decision to appoint respondent No.4, despite these findings and the ongoing investigation, is a grave oversight.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Chancellor did not adhere to the statutory requirement of a meticulous selection process, which necessitates rigorous scrutiny of each candidate's credentials. Given the serious nature of the pending investigation against respondent No.4 regarding the false caste certificate, the petitioner argues that respondent No.4 is unfit for the high office of Vice- Chancellor. The petitioner further claims that respondent No.4 admitted in his statement of objections that the enquiry before the District Caste Verification Committee was indeed pending, reinforcing the argument that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency.