PROFESSOR J SOMASHEKAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of resolution dated 2.2.2013 (Annexure-H) and communications dated 14.2.2013, 20.3.2013 and 30.9.2013 passed by respondent No.1. Further, he has sought for mandamus to respondent No.1 to annul the resolution dated 2.2.2013 of the Syndicate of respondent No.1 at its first General Meeting for the year 2013 and communications dated 14.2.2013, 20.3.2013 and 30.9.2013 passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of its powers under Sec. 10(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed to the post of reader in the 1st respondent University of Mysuru in the year 2003. He is stated to have held the posts of Reader and Professor. Further, he was appointed as the Director Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Reasearch and extension centre, Manasagangotri, Mysuru which is part and parcel of Respondent 1- University. So also, he was appointed as a guide for the students pursuing Ph.D programs in "Ambedkar Studies" by the 1st respondent. Thus he has rendered over and above one and half decade of distinguished and unblemished service with the 1st respondent. He was also involved in academic activities. While working as such, he had an opportunity of making an application for the post of Professor in the respondent No.3 - Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University. Pursuant to petitioner's application which has been routed through respondent No.1, he was selected and appointed to the post of Professor with respondent No.3 - Vijayanagara K. University. Petitioner had submitted resignation to 1st respondent, which is a conditional one, vide Annexure-R1. On 9.1.2013 petitioner was relieved by respondent No.1. Thereafter, petitioner intended to return to respondent No.1 University, which was not allowed by respondent No.1 on the score that the petitioner did not have the lien in respondent No.1 University. Thus, a resolution has been passed on 2.2.2013 and further communications have been made to the petitioner that he does not have the lien in respondent No.1 University.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no doubt petitioner has submitted conditional resignation vide Annexure-R1, but the same has not been accepted even to this day. That apart, relieving order/letter dated 9.1.2013 is only relieving the petitioner from the post of Professor in the respondent No.1 University. Thus, respondent No.1 has not acted on the petitioner's conditional resignation to the extent of its acceptance. On the other hand, relieving order is final in respect of reporting of the petitioner in the respondent No.3 University. During probation period, petitioner is entitled to come back and report to duty with first respondent, as he had lien over the post in the first respondent. In support of these contentions, he relied on the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCSR'), which has been adopted by the first respondent. Rule 19, 20(f) and 252(b) of the KCSR would assist the petitioner's contentions in the absence of acceptance of conditional resignation of the petitioner and the fact that he has been only relieved from the post. Hence, resolution and consequential communications of the first respondent are liable to be set aside.