IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.3807 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SEKHAR S.
S/O B.V.S. IYER AGED 55 YEARS R/O NO.155, 3 B CROSS MATHURA NAGARA MYSORE-570016 ... PETITIONER (By Sri VIJAY KUMAR V.BAJENTRI FOR M/S BAJENTRI ASSTS, ADVS.) AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2.CHANCELLOR OF MYSORE UNIVERSITY AND THE HON’BLE GOVERNOR RAJA BHAVAN, BANGALORE 560001 (DELETED V/O DATED 28.01.2013) 3.PROF. K.S. RANGAPPA VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE MYSORE-570005 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 SRI T.P.RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R3 R-2 DELETED V/O DATED 28.01.2013 ) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 24.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 24.12.2012 as per Annexure-“A” issued by the first respondent and to quash the notification dated 11.1.2013 made in No.ED 145 UMV 2012 issued by the second respondent as per Annexure-“G”.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent-State Government initiated the process of constituting Search Committee to find a suitable Vice Chancellor for the University of Mysuru under Section 14 of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, (‘KSU Act, 2000’ for short) since the term of the incumbent was about to come to an end on 10.12.2012. The University Grants Commission nominated Dr.N.R. Shetty, as one of the Members of the Search Committee. It is further contended that the petitioner sent E-mails to respondents 1 and 2, the Governor and the UGC, attaching documents to prove that the nomination of Dr.N.R. Shetty, to the Search Committee to select the Vice Chancellor of Mysuru University is violative of Section 14(3) of KSU Act, 2000 thereby making the constitution of the Search Committee illegal and unlawful.
3. It is further contended that the first respondent ignoring the assertions made by the petitioner, issued notification on 24.12.2012 constituting the Search Committee, which is unlawful as the nomination of one of the members-Dr.N.R. Shetty violates the provisions of Section 14(3) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Even though this fact was brought to the notice of the first respondent about four weeks earlier by emails, both the respondents have not taken any action to reconstitute the Search Committee. A meeting of unlawful Search Committee was convened on 4.1.2013 by the first respondent. The Search Committee was duty bound to submit a panel of three names to the Government under Section 14(4) of KSU Act, 2000. But the Search Committee prolonged the discussions and still could not have unanimity about one candidate Prof. K.S. Rangappa. A dissent note opposing the candidature of Prof.K.S. Rangappa was submitted by Dr.Thimmappa, one of the members of the Search Committee. The Search Committee, instead of sending a panel of three names to the Government as stipulated under Section 14(4) of the KSU Act 2000, sent the proceedings along with two panels and the dissent note to respondent No.2.
4. The respondent No.2, again, instead of seeking an unanimously arrived panel of three names as stipulated under Section 14(4) of the KSU Act, 2000, or instead of ordering for reconstitution of the Search Committee, has issued a Notification GS 30 MUM 2012 dated 11.01.2013 appointing Prof.K.S. Rangappa as the Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysuru. The University of Mysuru is a prestigious institution with a grand history of nearly 100 years and is well known for imparting quality education. It operates on a huge budget of Rs.120 crores and received grant from the Central Government and UGC. All this being the Tax payers money. The post of Vice Chancellor is a vital one in leading and directing this great seat of learning. Appointing an academic with merit and impeccable antecedents is crucial to leading this prestigious seat of learning. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. The State Government has filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the writ petition and contended that the very petition filed by the petitioner for the relief prayed for is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further stated that the term of the then Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysuru, has expired on 10.12.2012. Therefore, notification at Annexure-A was issued invoking the powers conferred under Section 14(2) of KSU Act, 2000 with an intention to submit a panel of three persons for appointment of Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University. As per the said notification, Dr.H.B. Kincha, nominee of the Government, was appointed as Chairman of the Search Committee and Dr.G. Thimmaiah, Prof.N.R. Shetty and Prof. M.S. Thimmappa were appointed as Members of the said Committee, with a direction to recommend to the Government the panel of three persons of eminent educationists in alphabetical order for submission to the Chancellor to select one of them as Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysuru.
6. Aggrieved by the said notification, the present writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that one of the members of the Search Committee namely Dr.N.R. Shetty, nominee of UGC has been nominated to the said Committee in violation of provisions of Section 14(3) of KSU Act, 2000, as he is said to be member of the Governing Council of Nittee Education Trust, Nitte Meenakshi Engineering College, Bengaluru. It is further stated that the Notification vide Annexure-G has been issued in pursuance of panel of names recommended by the Search Committee by which the second respondent has appointed third respondent as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysuru, that is also challenged in this writ petition. At Paragraph(8) of the statement of objections it is categorically stated that the UGC nominee in the Search Committee, namely, Prof. N.R. Shetty, had relinquished the Honorary Headship of Nitte Research and Education Academy on 22.11.2012 and same has been informed to the Registrar, Mysuru University and which in turn has been informed to the Government on 13.12.2012 as per Annexures-R1 and R2. Hence, as on the date of the issuance of the Government Notification i.e. 24.12.2012, constituting the Search Committee, Prof.N.R. Shetty’s nomination by UGC as its member was not in violation of directions given in Section 14(3) of KSU Act, 2000 as alleged.
7. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the dissent note of Prof. M.S. Thimmappa, one of the Member of the Search Committee, it is specifically stated at Paragraph 9 that since there was no unanimity among the members regarding preparation of the panel of 03 names, the Search Committee instead submitted to the Government the individual panel of 03 names for consideration with one of the member Dr.H.P. Kincha not expressing any views as can be noticed on perusal of Annexure-E. As there was no direction in KSU Act, 2000 as to the action to be taken in the event of non-arrival of unanimity among the members to prepare a panel of 03 names, the individual panel of names of the members was forwarded to the second respondent for further action regarding appointment of Vice-Chancellor. Section 14(4) of KSU Act, 2000 empowered the Chancellor to call for a second panel if he considers it necessary with the concurrence of the State Government. Since, the Chancellor did not consider it necessary for calling of second panel, the said Authority invoking the provisions of Section 14(4) of KSU Act, 2000 appointed third respondent as Vice- Chancellor of University of Mysuru vide Notification dated 11.01.2013.
8. On perusal of the provisions of Section 14(4) of KSU Act, 2000, it is clear that nowhere there is a direction that the members of the Search Committee should not submit their panel of names and also there is no direction regarding the action to be taken in case unanimity is not arrived within the members regarding the panel of 03 names. Instead the only direction given is pertaining to calling for a second panel if the Chancellor considers it necessary with the concurrence of the State Government. Since the Chancellor did not consider it necessary for calling of second panel, the said Authority has finalized the name of third respondent as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysore. Therefore, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for.
9. The third respondent also filed objections contending that the writ petition filed by the petitioner by way of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable as he has no locus-standi to question the appointment of third respondent and further the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment of third respondent as he is not the contender for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Besides the issue involved in the present writ petition pertains to the service matter and hence, it does not fall under the purview of Public Interest Litigation. It is further contended that the first respondent constituted a Committee in accordance with law and after individual submissions made by the members the third respondent is appointed by the Chancellor under the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act. Therefore, third respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. The third respondent has also filed a memo for disposal on 25.4.2017 stating that the petitioner has sought to quash the order dated 11.1.2013 by which the third respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of University for a period of four years. Since during the pendency of the present writ petition, the said period came to an end, the third respondent demitted the office on 10.1.2017 on completion of four years. The writ petition therefore would not survive for consideration. The said memo is also placed on record.
11. Inspite of the said memo filed, learned counsel Sri.Vijaykumar Bajentri for petitioner insisted to decide the matter on merits. Therefore, the Court has taken pains to decide the matter in passing detail order.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
13. Sri.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition contended that the impugned order passed by the State Government appointing the Search Committee dated 24.12.2012 and appointing Prof. N.R. Shetty as one of the members is in violation of Section 14(3) of the Act. He would further contend that one of the members namely Dr. Thimmappa had issued a dissent note. Therefore, the State Government and the Vice- Chancellor ought to have appointed the second panel. Instead the second respondent issued notification appointing respondent No.3 as Vice-Chancellor of University of Mysore, which is in violation of Section 14(3) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Therefore, he has sought to allow the writ petition.
14. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Tawakya Singh .vs. State of Bihar and others (2013) 16 SCC 206 at paragraph 44.
15. Per contra, Sri.Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondents No.1 and 2 contending that in categorical terms the State Government has denied the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the nomination of Dr.N.R. Shetty when there was no unanimity among the members and the procedure followed at Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of objections. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the objections filed by the State government justifying the impugned order passed as per Annexures-‘A and G’. He would further contend that first of all the petitioner has not stated as to how he is related to University or appointment of Search Committee and appointment of Vice-Chancellor. In the absence of any such legal right, the very writ petition is filed only to settle his personal vengeance against respondent No.3 and others. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
16. Sri.T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that in the absence of any right, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner has not stated anything about his legal right to challenge Annexures-A and G. The State Government and the second respondent after following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 14 of the KSU Act, 2000, have proceeded to appoint Search Committee and second respondent appointed the third respondent as Vice-Chancellor. The term of Vice- Chancellor is also over. To that effect, a memo is already filed on 24.3.2017 and submits that since respondent No.3 has spent the period itself, the prayer has become infructuous. The insistence of the arguments on merits is nothing but abusing the process of the Court and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully.
18. In the entire pleadings of the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated as to how he is aggrieved by the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. In the absence of any legal right to challenge and he being not a competitor either to become a Member or Vice-
Chancellor, the very writ petition filed to quash Annexures-A and G passed by respondents 1 and 2 is not maintainable. The petitioner has no locus standi to question the order passed by the first respondent after following the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of KSU Act, 2000. The writ petition is not in the form of Public Interest Litigation. The contention raised by the petitioner with regard Prof. N.R. Shetty, not eligible to be nominated as Member of the Search Committee, has been denied in categorical terms by the State Government at Para 8. It is specifically contended that Prof. N.R. Shetty had relinquished the Honorary Headship of Nitte Research and Education Academy on 22.11.2012 and same has been informed to the Registrar, Mysuru University and which in turn has been informed to the Government on 13.12.2012. Respondents 1 and 2 have specifically contended that on the date of issuance of Government Notification constituting the Search Committee on 24.12.2012, Prof.
N.R. Shetty was not a member of the Honorary Headship of Nitte Research and Education Academy and as such there was no violation of the directions as contemplated under Section 14(3) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000.
19. Admittedly, the said assertions and the documents produced before the Court are not at all denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder, which clearly indicate that inspite of truth placed before the Court by the respondents and even though the petitioner has no locus standi still, the counsel has proceeded to argue the writ petition, which clearly depicts the audacity in wasting the public time and brow beating the Court proceedings.
20. Insofar as the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the dissent note made by one of the members namely Prof.M.S. Thimmappa , it is stated at Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of objections filed by the State that though the Chancellor is empowered to call for a second panel if he considers it necessary with the concurrence of the State Government, the Chancellor did not consider it necessary for calling of second panel and has proceeded to appoint the third respondent. The same is not denied by filing any rejoinder. Further, the third respondent who was appointed as Vice-chancellor on 11.1.2013 for a period of four years, has spent and demitted his office on 10.1.2017 after completing the term of Office. Though learned counsel for the third respondent has also filed a memo on 25.4.2017 stating that the writ petition has become infructuous and also the same was brought to the notice of the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner insisted to decide the matter on merits. Virtually, there is nothing to decide except, wasting of public time.
21. Insofar as the reliance placed on the decision in Ram Tawakya Singh’s case supra by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that was a case where there was no locus standi between the Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor. Under those circumstances, it is held that:
“Before concluding, we shall deal with the objection raised by Shri Jethmalani to the locus standi of Dr.Ram Tawakya Singh and another objection raised by him and Shri Anil Divan to the maintainability of the appeal filed by the State of Bihar. In our view, challenge to the locus standi of Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh was rightly rejected by the High Court. It is not in dispute that he is a Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry in Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not project himself as a candidate for the office of Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-
Chancellor is not sufficient to deny him the right to question the appointments made by the Chancellor. His anxiety to ensure that eminent educationists are appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro- Vice-Chancellors in the State can very well be appreciated”
Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner has not stated what is his avocation and whether he is heading any of the positions in Education Department to ensure that eminent educationists are appointed as Vice- Chancellor of Mysuru University. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner admittedly Dr.Ram Tawakya Singh was a Professor and Head of the Department of Chemistry in Veer Kunwar Singh University. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court appreciated the anxiety of the Professor and Head of the Department. In the instant case, petitioner is not related to any Education Institution or University. In the absence of any legal right to challenge, the decision relied upon by him has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
22. It is also relevant to state that respondent No.3 who was appointed on 11.1.2013 has spent the term of office and admittedly demitted the office on 10.1.2017. On that ground also the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. The petitioner has not come to Court with clean mind, heard and hands. Such litigant should not be encouraged unnecessarily to waste public time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not impleaded Prof. N.R. Shetty against whom allegations are made that he is not eligible and that adverse orders, if any, are passed would have affected. The writ petition filed without impleading Prof. N.R. Sheetty is also liable to be rejected for non-joinder of necessary and proper party.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondents 1 and 2, in exercise of the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-