G R RANGASWAMAIAH Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are disposed of by the following common order though they cannot be said to be either common on questions of facts or law. They are so disposed of because the result in the first of the petitions will definately affect the petitioner in the Second of the petitions. What really is common to both the petitions is the desire of the petitioners therein to fill-up the same vacant post of Professor of History in the University of Mysore.

(2.) The necessary facts alleged in the two petitions and the returns filed in respect thereof will be briefly noticed snd they are as follows: The post of Professor of Economic History appears to have been advertised more than once, to be precise, till this date, four times. It is the fourth advertisement which has been challenged by the petitioner-Dr. K. A.Shivanna as being without jurisdiction. The grievance of the petitioner in the first of the petitions Prof. G. R. Rangaswa- maiah is that the Chancellor has erred in failing to appoint, in terms of sub. sec. (6) of S. 49 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as per the recommendation of the Board of Appointments made pursuant to the Meeting held on 26-11-1983 which proceeding was as a result of the third of the advertiseme its for the same post. While the petitioner in the first of the petitions has alleged that the action of the 1st respondent-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent-University in rejecting the recommendation of the Board of Appointments and directing readvcrtisement as being without jurisdiction and in excess of the powers conferred by the Statute on him, the Counsel for the petitioner in the second of the petitions has been heard both in regard to the relief asked for by the petitioner in the first of the petitions as well as the merit of his own petition.

(3.) There is no dispute that in response to the 3rd advertisement (in these two Writ Petitions we are not concerned as to the legality or otherwise of the result of the 1st and 2nd advertisements) that both the petitioners, along with another applicant belonging to Scheduled Caste appeared before the Board of Appointments constituted under S. 49(2) of the Act. Later, in the course of the order, I shall extract the relevant portions of the proceedings which will indicate that the Scheduled Caste candidate was found not qualified as per the advertisement and therefore, though that particular post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, his candidature was rejected and the post treated as one available for general merit group.