IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.7060 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN SRI. RANGANATH. S. C. S/O. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT SUGGANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
AND (BY SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER 1. THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE SCIENCE, GKVK, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBALA, BANGALORE-560 032.
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GKVK, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBALA, BANGALORE-560 032.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R3 ... RESPONDENTS SRI L VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.12.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was working as a Training Assistant and in-charge Farm Manager, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Chandurayanahalli, Kalya Post, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. The petitioner made an application to the respondent-university that in terms of the guidelines prescribed by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, the petitioner be permitted to pursue Ph.D course on deputation basis. The respondent university having conducted a examination found that the petitioner was eligible for pursuing Ph.D course as an in service candidate, on deputation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent University sanctioned leave to the petitioner for pursuing Ph.D course vide notification dated 03.10.2018. As per the notification dated 03.11.2018 the petitioner was deputed to pursue Ph.D course with salary. The learned counsel submits that after having given requisite permission, the petitioner pursued the Ph.D course, while all of a sudden by the impugned order dated 19.12.2018 at Annexure-A, the Administrative Officer of the University has withdrawn the facility sanctioned to the petitioner without assigning any reasons.
3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. The respondent have sought to assign reasons for the impugned order, mainly on the ground that the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant, which was a non- teaching post and therefore the petitioner was not eligible to pursue higher studies. However what is clear is that the respondent have not issued any notice before passing an order recalling the benefit given to the petitioner. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard before embarking upon an order that would take away the benefit given to the petitioner, that too during the middle of the course.
4. In that view of the matter, the petition requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2018 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside. It is made clear that the respondent may proceed in accordance with law affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before any order which would take away the benefit granted earlier has to be passed against the petitioner.
With these observations, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE