SHIVANNA NAIK Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent University issued a Notification dated 15-11-2001 inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in Law. The petitioner was one of the applicants. According to him he belongs to Schedule Caste. Though he was eligible, his application was not considered by the respondent-University and selected another person under the backlog vacancy. In the circumstances, the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent, submitted an application requisition the respondent to furnish the details' as per the provisions of the Karnataka Right to information Act, 2000, which application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision to furnish the documents under the Bangalore University Regulations. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, which appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable as per Annexure-'f' dated 16-12-2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed requesting this Court to direct the respondent to issue a writ of mandamus to furnish the details as sought for by the petitioner under Right to information Act.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have filed a detailed counter. According to them the respondent-University will not come under the purview of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. Therefore it is contended that the present petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the University could not have rejected the application filed by him under the karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. Since, the University falls under the definition of article 12 of the Constitution of India and also falls under the definition of Public Authority as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. In support of his submission he has also relied upon the Judgment of this Court, G. V. Sundaresh v. Bangalore university, 1967 Mysore Law Journal. Relying upon this judgment, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.