DR. C. BASAVARAJU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is assailing the Government Order dated 18.06.2014 whereunder the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 ('the Act 2000 for short) has annulled the proceedings of the Syndicate of Mysore University with respect to the recruitments made in violation of the norms during 2006 and 2007 and the appointments issued thereupon.

(2.) The petitioner is one of the selected candidates in the process that was conducted by the respondent-University and was approved by the Syndicate. However, certain allegations were made with regard to the selection process pursuant to which the committee was set up and based on the recommendations His excellency the Governor had indicated that action be taken. Pursuant thereto the Government in exercise of the power under Section 10(1) of the Act, 2000 has passed the order impugned dated 18.06.2014. In the instant petition while assailing the order impugned several contentions have been urged to the effect that firstly even if a reconsideration as ordered by his excellency was to be made, the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act was also required to be followed. In that view, the contention is that the right of the petitioner has been affected inasmuch as such procedure has not been followed. It is also the case that such consideration in respect of the entire recruitment process would not be justified since in certain cases the appointment is in accordance with law after following the relevant policy. Further the contention is also that when the Government finds it necessary to consider the matter under Section 10 of the Act, 2000 not only the University, the Syndicate of which has passed the orders/proceedings is to be notified but also the employees who would be affected by such action are to be notified and opportunity is to be granted. In that view, it is contended that the order is not justified.

(3.) Respondent No.1-Government has filed a detailed objection statement referring to the entire conspectus of the matter including the allegations, enquiry held and the action that was required. In that light it is sought to be justified that the ultimate action is in accordance with law. Insofar as the contention that the affected candidates have not been notified and therefore there is violation of principles of natural justice, the contention as urged is that the non issue of notice cannot be considered as fatal in all situations as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379. In that light it is sought that the petition be dismissed.