IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION No. 14953 OF 2019 (S-RES) Between:
Prof. B.C. Mylarappa, 56 years, @ Dr. Chikkamelurappa, S/o. Sri. Byrappa, In-charge Director, Directorate of Distance Education, Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bengaluru -560 056. ... Petitioner (By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, M.S. Building, Bengaluru -560 001.
2. The Bengaluru University, Represented by its Registrar, Jnana Bharathi, Bengaluru -560 056. ... Respondents (By Smt. M.S. Prathima, AGA for R1; Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure-F) issued by R1 as being arbitrary and illegal with a further direction to grant all consequential benefits.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel waives notice for respondent No.2, Bengaluru University.
2. The petitioner who is the Head of Department of Sociology at the respondent University, was appointed as in-charge Director, Directorate of Correspondence Course and Distance Education, Bengaluru Unviersity by order dated 18.09.2017.
3. Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Under Secretary to Government, High Education Department (University-2) has made a communication dated 26.03.2019 to the Vice Chancellor of the Bengaluru University, making reference to Section 34(7) of Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 and opined that the petitioner is not eligible to continue as Head of the Department and a specific direction is issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University to relieve the petitioner as Director, Directorate of Correspondence Course and Distance Education. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Section -10 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 requires the State Government to afford an opportunity to the University before annulling any order, Notification, resolution or any proceedings of the University. The learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court, in the case of C. Krishna Vs. University of Mysore, reported in ILR 2005 KAR 361 has held that in the absence of expressed provision in the statute, principles of natural justice is engrafted into the provisions of law by implication. The statute does not expressly state that it is not necessary to hear any third person who would be affected by an order under Section 10. However, when the statute is silent on this aspect, principles of natural justice can be read into by implication. It is therefore submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that it is the incumbent upon the State Government to issue notice not only to the University but also to the affected party i.e., petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned communication dated 26.03.2019 may be treated as a notice to the University and to the petitioner so as to enable the University and the petitioner to have their say in this matter.
4. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, in the facts and circumstances of this case and the prayer made by the learned Senior Counsel at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that there is no harm in considering the communication dated 26.03.2019 as a notice to the University and to the petitioner. The University and the petitioner may file their reply. The petitioner may file his reply through the University within a period of two weeks from today and the respondent University shall also consider and file its reply to the State Government within a period of four weeks from the date when the reply is received from the petitioner herein. The State Government is at liberty to consider such representations and then pass orders in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly disposed off. Annexure –F is therefore read down as a notice.
Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath within four weeks from today.
SD/- JUDGE BVK