Karnataka High Court
Smt Ramya H N vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 26495 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMYA H. N.
W/O SANTHOSH M.P.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
FORMERLY WORKED AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
KAREKERE, HASSAN - 573 225
NEAR THAMALAPURA RING ROAD CIRCLE
NANDINI PARLOUR, HEMAVATHI NAGAR
HASSAN - 573 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI & SMT. ANUSHA L., ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHANDANA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
BM
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Location: 4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
High Court
of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 00.
2. THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
REGISTRAR OFFICE GKVK
BENGALURU - 560 065.
3. VICE CHANCELLOR,
CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU - 560 065.
5. THE DEAN (AGRICULTURE)
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
KARAKERE, HASSAN - 563 225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF
THE RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY IN ITS 406TH MEETING HELD ON
23.04.2025, AS EVIDENT FROM LETTER DATED 21.05.2025 AS PER
ANNEXURE-C, FORTHWITH AND WITHOUT AWAITING FURTHER
APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to give effect to the resolution passed by the Board of
Management of the Respondent-University in its
406th Meeting held on 23.04.2025, as evident from
letter dated 21.05.2025 as per Annexure-C, forthwith
and without awaiting further approval from the
Government;
b) Alternatively, direct the respondent-Government
permitting to implement the resolution dated
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
23.04.2025 and to appoint the petitioner in view of
the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Court in
W.A.No.968/1998 (Annexure-F), and the Apex Court,
including two decisions rendered by the KAT in
Application No.1392/2023 (Annexure-D) and RA
No.112/2024 (Annexure-E)
c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents
to implement the decision of this Hon’ble Court dated
23.09.2023 in W.P.No.18512/2023 as per Annexure-
B.
d) Pass any appropriate writ or orders or any other
directions in the circumstances of the case to meet
the ends of justice.”
e) Issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement
dated 30.10.2025 as per Annexure-J as arbitrary,
violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and is in violation of principles of nature justice;
f) Declare that the State Government has no power to
reject the proposal sent by the University and the
Respondent – University may be directed to
implement the resolution in its 406th meeting held on
23.04.2025 in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the material on record.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Professor of
Agricultural University in respondent Nos.2 and 3 – University. The
appointment of the petitioner was challenged by one Smt. Prakruthi
N. Rajgangadkar in W.P.No.9340/2013, in which the petitioner
herein was arrayed as respondent No.4 and the said petition came
to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide final order
dated 18.04.2023, directing and quashing the appointment of the
petitioner herein to the post of Assistant Professor reserved for
Women-GM and directed to recalculate the marks as hereunder:
“The petitioner is challenging order of appointment
dates 28.09.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent, (Annexure-
A), appointing the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant
Professor, reserved for Women (GM) in the Department of
Agricultural Engineering, interalia, sought for appointment to
the said post strictly in terms of the scorecard guidelines
prescribed by the University of Agricultural Science
(Annexure-C).
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are
that, the respondent-University has issued notification dated
06.03.2012, to fill up various posts in different departments
including four posts of Assistant Professor in the Department
of Agricultural Engineering as per notification produced at
Annexure-B to the writ petition. The respondent-University
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
has issued guidelines and procedure for selection to the post
of Professor/Teacher, dated 03.12.2007 (Annexure-C) to the
writ petition. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had
appeared for interview and in terms of the scorecard
produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition, the petitioner
has secured 41.90 marks and the 4th respondent has scored
43.22 marks.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner
has lost out the job to 4th respondent on account of improper
and wrong assessment and recording of score by the
interview committee. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has approached the respondent-University by way
of representation and as the respondents have not
considered the case of the petitioner, the present writ petition
is filed challenging selection of the 4th respondent to the post
of Assistant Professor reserved for Women(GM) in the
Department of Agricultural Engineering.
4. I have heard Sri. I.Tharanath Poojary, learned
Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shivaprasad
Shanthanagoudar, for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivasa,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3;
Sri. C.G.Gopalaswamy, learned Senior counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri Bhargav G., for the respondent No.4; Sri
M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent No.5- Government.
5. Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that the selection
committee has not followed the guidelines produced at
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Annexure-C to the writ petition and marking of marks is
contrary to the same, and the selection committee has
deliberately failed to consider the experience of the petitioner
as Teacher at College of Agriculture, VC Farm, Mandya, and
accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. In this
regard, he referred to the guidelines providing for award of
marks, particularly, Sl No.1(e) envisages for additional
qualification in the field and Sl No.4 provides for experience
in Teaching/Research/Extension and therefore, he
contended that, though the petitioner was working with the
University of Agricultural Science, Mysore and Mandya, and
same was ignored and on the other hand,
respondentUniversity has selected the 4th respondent based
on the certificate issued by one of the private firm-Namdhari
Agro Fresh Private Limited, which is contrary to guidelines.
6. Nextly, I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel
argued that, the selection process has to be made in
accordance with the rules and terms of the recruitment
notification and every candidate participated in the selection
process has vested right for consideration and therefore, he
places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of N.T.Devin Katti and others vs. Karnataka Public
Service Commission and others reported in (1990) 3 SCC
157 and in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj
Kumar reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347. He further contended
that the requirement of NET certificate as stated by
respondent-University is not required in the present situation,
where, ICAR is not conducting any NET for certain
disciplines and in this regard, he refers to the corrigendum
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
dated 05.02.2010 (Annexure-L). Emphasizing on this aspect,
Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel contended
that the appointment of the 4th respondent is vitiated by legal
malice and malafide on the part of the respondentUniversity
and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri C. R. Gopalaswamy, learned senior
counsel appearing for 4th respondent sought to justify the
selection of the 4th respondent and further contended that,
the appointment has been made as per the Rules and
Guidelines provided at Annexure-C to the writ petition and
accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. He
further contended that the petitioner having participated in
the selection process cannot challenge the methodology
adopted by the respondent University and therefore, he
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others vs. The State of
Jammu and Kashmir and others in Civil Appeal Nos.2164-
2172 of 2023 disposed of on 28.03.2023. He further
contended that, there is no statutory violation by the
respondent-University and the prayer made in the writ
petition is vague and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of
the writ petition. Sri C. R. Gopalswamy, learned senior
counsel for the respondent no.4 further contended that 4th
respondent has been appointed and thereafter, she has
been promoted to the higher post and accordingly, no
interference is called for at this stage as more hardship
would be caused to 4th respondent.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. Sri M.S. Nagaraj, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government
reiterates the submission made by the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent No.4.
9. Sri Srinivsas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-University contended that the procedure adopted
by the respondent-University is as per guidelines produced
at Annexure-C to the writ petition and the Expert Committee
as per Annexure-R3 after look into the merit of the
candidates and selected the 4th respondent and same
cannot be interfered with, by exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, he sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. In reply to the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri I. Tharanath
Poojary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
invited the attention of the Court to Clause No.11 of
Instructions in the notification dated 06.03.2012, and
submitted that, the entire selection process for the post
notified is as per the score card and therefore, in this regard,
as there is violation of statutory obligation by the respondent-
University, he contended that, the submission made by the
respondents cannot be accepted. He also referred to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011)
3 SCC 436. He further contended that the respondent-
University never denied the allegations made by the
petitioner in the Statement of Objections with regard to the
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
mode of selection process and therefore, he sought for
interference of this Court.
11. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the respondent-University
has issued notification dated 06.03.2012 to recruit various
posts in the University of Agricultural Sciences. Insofar as
Agricultural Engineering is concerned, there are four posts,
out of which, two posts are general merit (One post reserved
for Woman), Category IIA-1 (Woman), SC-1(Woman).
Petitioner as well as the 4th respondent appeared for
interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the
XCDepartment of Agricultural Engineering. Note to
qualification reads as under: Note:
“1. In exceptional cases where ASRB (ICAR) is
not conducting the NET in certain disciplines, the
candidates should pass NET in the disciplines
approved by the Academic Council in the related
subjects: As per Notification No.AO/RT/Quali.
Asst.Prof./Direct Rectt./2008-09 dated: 18-7-2008 and
Notification No.AO/RT/Quali. Asst.Prof./Direct
Rectt./2008-09 dated 3-11-2008, and as approved by
the Board of Management in its 337th II Adjourned
Emergent Meeting held on 6-8- 2010 and confirmed in
the Minutes dated: of 25-11-2010. Corrigendum
No.AO/PS/AC-167/21/Item – 9/Corgndm/2010 dated: 5-
2-2010 available on UAS-B
Website:www.uasbangalore.edu.in”
12. Clause-I (4) of the Guidelines (Annexure-C) reads
as under:
4. Experience in Maximum marks allotted = 15
Teaching/Research / Extension: i) 0.125 Mark for each month of
Experience in the cadre of service in Teaching/ Research/
Instructor / Research Assistant / Extension.
Extension Guide / Technical Note : To be supported by
Assistant / Scientific Assistant / authorized document issued by
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Farm Manager / temporary the competent authority.
appointments as Research
Associate / Extension worker / Full
time SRF / Project Scientist /
Specialist in an University/College /
Government Departments/Research
Organizations/Boards/Corporations
/ ICAR Institutes / Similar Institute
like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, ICRISAT
etc./ Krishi Vignana Kendras /
Statutory
Bodies / International
Organizations / Nationalized
Banks / Non Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) working on
Government Projects.
13. Additional qualifications in the field as per Clause-I
(e) of the notification reads as under:
e) Additional qualifications in Maximum marks allotted = 03
the field (i) Post-doctoral experience = 2
mark for each of 6 months
(ii) PG diploma / M.Phil not less
than ten months duration +1
mark for each certificate.
(iii) Higher academic training in a
recognised academic/scientific/
professional Institution (21 days
& above duration) = 0.5 mark for
each training
14. On careful examination of the additional
qualification, where the candidate possessing, Post Doctoral
experience, two marks for each of six months and 0.5 mark
for each trainee, for possessing certificate from Higher
Academic Training, in a recognized academic/scientific/
professional Institution in relevant fields (21 days and above
duration). Clause I (4) stipulates that, 0.125 marks for each
month of service in teaching/ research/extension in a cadre
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
of Instructor/Research Assistant/Extension Guide/Technical
Assistant/Scientific Assistant/Farm Manager/temporary
appointments as Research Associate/Extension worker/Full
time SRF/ Project Scientist/Specialist in an
University/College/Government Departments/Research
Organizations/Boards/Corporations /ICAR Institutes/Similar
Institute like ICMR, CSIR, NCERT, ICRISAT etc./ Krishi
Vignana Kendras/Statutory bodies /International
Organization/ Nationalized Banks/Non-Governmental
Organizations(NGOs) working on Government Projects and
a candidate must establish their experience through
authorized documents issued by the competent authority. In
the present case, as per a corrigendum dated 05.02.2010
(Annexure-L), which stipulates that, adoption of ICAR
regulations, regarding NET, as essential qualification for
recruitment of Assistant Professor in the University.
Modification made in the corrigendum dated 05.02.2010
(Annexure- L) makes it clear that, instead of “Exempted from
NET” it has to be read as ‘Exempted”. Clause 11 under the
head of Instructions in the notification dated 06.03.2012
(Annexure-B), provides that the selection process, is as per
the score card, notified by the respondent-University. In that
view of the matter, careful examination of the writ papers
would indicate that the 4th respondent, had annexed the
experience as Manager-Stores at Namdhari Agro Fresh
Private Ltd., which cannot be considered for the purpose of
experience in terms of the guidelines referred to above as
same would not satisfy the requirement therein. I have also
noticed that, the petitioner was working as full time contract
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Teacher at the college of Agricultural, VC Farm, Mandya,
and it is particular under University of Agricultural Sciences
Bangalore. In that view of the matter, ignoring the relevant
documents made by the petitioner and accepting the
documents which is otherwise contrary to guidelines
produced at Annexure-C, filed by the 4th respondent herein
is in violation Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the entire
selection process is based on legal malice and requires to be
set aside in this writ petition. Though the respondent-
University has argued that, the petitioner has not possessed
NET certificate, however, same is exempted in terms of
corrigendum issued on 05.02.2010 (Annexure- L to the writ
petition). The guidelines referred to at Annexure-C, shall be
equally applicable to the candidates and therefore, I am of
the view that, the respondent-University has not followed the
norms governing the essential aspects, such as qualification
and experience and the entire process has not been made in
terms of the notification and guidelines produced Annexures-
B and C respectively. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract
the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
N.T.Devin Katti and others (supra), paragraph 11, which
reads as under:
“11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where
advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct
recruitment to a category of posts, and the
advertisement expressly states that selection shall be
made in accordance with the existing Rules or
Government Orders, and if it further indicates the
extent of reservations in favour of various categories,
the selection of candidates in such a case must be
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
made in accordance with the then existing Rules and
Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and
undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right
for being considered for selections in accordance with
the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement, unless the advertisement itself
indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate
has right to be considered in accordance with the
terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as
his right crystalises on the date of publication of
advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the
matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended
retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that
event selection must be held in accordance with the
amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective
effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of
the Rules and its construction to ascertain the
legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained
either by express provision or by necessary
implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective
in nature the selection must be regulated in
accordance with the Rules and orders which were in
force on the date of advertisement. Determination of
this question largely depends on the facts of each case
having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the
advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. Lest
there be any confusion, we would like to make it clear
that a candidate on making application for a post
pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any
vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is
otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant
Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,
he does acquire a vested right for being considered for
selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed
on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of
that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the
pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are
retrospective in nature.”
15. In the case of Rajkumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex
Court at paragraph 28 to 31 has held as under:
“28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second
guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office
or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to
the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an
intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
unsuitable renders the courts’ decision suspect to the
charge of trespass into executive power of
determining suitability of an individual for appointment.
This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah
v. Union Public Service Commission which held as
follows: (SCC pp.131, 135-36 paras 21& 30)
“21. Now, comes the question with
regard to the selection of the candidates.
Normally, the recommendations of the Selection
Committee cannot be challenged except on the
ground of mala fides or serious violation of the
statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an
Appellate Authority to examine the
recommendations of the Selection Committee
like the court of appeal. This discretion has
been given to the Selection Committee only and
courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine
the selection of the candidates nor is the
business of the court to examine each
candidate and record its opinion…
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit
as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal
records and constitute Selection Committee to
undertake this exercise. This power is not given to
the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood
that the assessment of the Selection Committee is
not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or
by the courts. One has to give credit to the
Selection Committee for making their assessment
and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall
view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held
to be very good and another may be held to be
good. If this type of interference is permitted then it
would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the
High Courts have started sitting as Selection
Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over
the selection.”
29. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S.
Mahajan this court held that: (SCC pp.309-10,
para 12)
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
“12. … it is not the function of the court to hear
appeals over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of
the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a
particular post or not has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee which has the
expertise on the subject. The court has no such
expertise. … in the present case the University had
constituted the Committee in due compliance with
the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of
experts and it selected the candidates after going
through all the relevant material before it. In sitting
in appeal over the selec- tion so made and in
setting it aside on the ground of the so-called
comparative merits of the candidates as assessed
by the court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction.”
30. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M.
Sathiya Priya, it was iterated that: (SCC p.8012, para 17
“17. … The question as to how the categories are
assessed in light of the relevant records and as to
what norms apply in making the assessment, is
exclusively to be determined by the Selection
Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make
selection as per law is vested in the Selection
Committee and as the Selection Committee
members have got expertise in the matter, it is not
open for the courts generally to interfere in such
matters except in cases where the process of
assessment is vitiated either on the ground of
bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the
function of the court to hear the matters before it
treating them as appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative
merit of the candidates. The question as to
whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or
not has to be decided by the duly constituted
expert body i.e. the Selection Committee.”
31. Public service – like any other, pre-supposes
that the state employer has an element of latitude
or choice on who should enter its service. Norms,
based on principles, govern essential aspects
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
such as qualification, experience, age, number of
attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These,
broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of
each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter
public service. Judicial review, under the
Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those
norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly,
in a non-discriminatory manner. However,
suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or
choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long
as the process of decision making is neither
illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.”
16. In the case of Prakash Chand Meena and others
vs. State of Rajastan and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC
484 paragraph 8 reads as under:
“8. Having heard the parties, we have also
perused the written submissions filed on behalf of
some of them and have perused the judgment of
the learned Single Judge [Prakash Chand Meena
v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj
1898] and the impugned judgment [Dinesh Kumar
Panwar v. Suresh Chand, Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1181 of 2012, decided on 1-7-2013
(Raj), 2013 SCC OnLine Raj 3770] of the Division
Bench. In our considered view, the issue noticed
at the outset must be decided on the basis of
settled law noticed by the learned Single Bench
that recruitment process must be completed as
per terms and conditions in the advertisement and
as per Rules existing when the recruitment
process began. In the present case, the Division
Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the
issue whether BPEd and DPEd qualifications are
equivalent or superior to CPEd qualification but
such exercise cannot help the cause of the
respondents who had the option either to cancel
the recruitment process if there existed good
reasons for the same or to complete it as per
terms of advertisement and as per Rules. They
chose to continue with the recruitment process
and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the qualification laid down in the advertisement as
well as in the Rules which were suitably amended
only later in 2011. In such a situation, factual
justifications cannot change the legal position that
the respondents acted against law and against the
terms of advertisement in treating such applicants
successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr.
III who held other qualifications but not the
qualification of CPEd. Such candidates had not
even submitted separate OMR application form for
appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III which was
essential as per the terms of advertisement.”
17. In the case of Parvaize Ahammed Parry vs. State
of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2015) 17 SCC 709
Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 13 and 16 has held as
follows:
“13. As would be clear from the undisputed
facts mentioned above, the minimum qualification
prescribed for applying to the post of Jammu and
Kashmir Forest Service Range Officers Grade I
was “BSc (Forestry) or equivalent from any
university recognised by ICAR”. It is not disputed
that the appellant had to his credit a qualification
of BSc with Forestry as one of the major subjects
and Masters in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry), on the
date when he applied for the post in question,
which satisfied the eligibility criteria so far as the
qualification was concerned.
14. We do not agree with the reasoning of
the High Court that in order to be an eligible
candidate, the appellant should have done BSc in
Forestry and since he had not done so, he was not
considered as an eligible candidate. This
reasoning, in our view, does not stand to any logic
and is, therefore, not acceptable insofar as the
facts of this case are concerned.
15. In our considered view, firstly, if there
was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in
prescribing the qualification in the advertisement,
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
then it should have been clarified by the authority
concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if
it was not clarified, then benefit should have been
given to the candidate rather than to the
respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there
was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we
find that the appellant was admittedly having BSc
degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects
in his graduation and further he was also having
Master’s degree in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry). In
the light of these facts, we are of the view that the
appellant was possessed of the prescribed
qualification to apply for the post in question and
his application could not have been rejected
treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not
possessing prescribed qualification.
16. In our view, if a candidate has done BSc
in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has
also done Masters in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry)
then in the absence of any clarification on such
issue, the candidate possessing such higher
qualification has to be held to possess the
required qualification to apply for the post. In fact,
acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed
subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the
appellant had possessed the prescribed
qualification. It was coupled with the fact that
Forestry was one of the appellant’s major subjects
in graduation, due to which he was able to do his
Masters in Forestry.”
18. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, I am of the view that
the awarding of marks by the respondent-University at
Annexure-D to the writ petition is untenable and do not pass
the list of objectivity recruitment for the post of Assistant
Professor under notification dated 06.03.2012, appointing
the 4th respondent to the post of Assistant Professor is
contrary to the notification and guidelines referred to at
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Annexures-D and E respectively. Therefore, I am of the view
that the appointment of the 4th respondent as per order
dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A), requires to be set aside and
the matter is remitted to the respondent-University to
reconsider the case of the candidates who had appeared in
the interview, in terms of the notification dated 06.03.2012,
afresh and take decision in the matter. This Court, by order
dated 27.02.2013, passed an interim order that all further
proceedings of the respondent will be subject to the further
orders and disposal of the writ petition. In that view of the
matter, since, the entire selection process and awarding
marks insofar as the appointment of the Assistant Professor
under notification dated 06.03.2012, appointing the 4th
respondent is contrary to law and in the light of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, it is
also to be noted that, the judgments referred to by the
contesting respondents in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) is not
applicable to the facts on record as the petitioner herein has
proved that selection process and methodology of the
recruitment is violation of statutory rules, moreover, it is
relevant to extract paragraph 12.1 (page 50) of the said
judgment.
“12.1 Thus, the inexorable conclusion that
can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of
the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review,
to enter into the merits of a selection process, a
task which is the prerogative of and is within the
expert domain of a selection Committee, subject of
course to a caveat that if there are proven
allegations of malfeasance or violations of
statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent
arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
Thus, Courts while exercising the power of
judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the
selection Committee or assume an appellate role
to examine whether the marks awarded by the
Selection Committee in the viva-voce are
excessive and not corresponding to their
performance in such test. The assessment and
evaluation of the performance in such test. The
assessment and evaluation of the performance of
candidates appearing before the Selection
Committee/ Interview Board should be best left to
the members of the committee. IN light of the
position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against
the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound
selection process, the following grounds raised by
the writ petitioners, where are based on the attack
of subjective criteria employed by the selection
board/ interview panel in assessing the suitability
of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who
had done their post- graduation had been
awarded 10 marks and in the viva-voce, such PG
candidates had been grated either 18 marks or 20
marks out of 20. (ii) that although the writ
petitioners has performed exceptionally well in the
interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary
manner while carrying out the selection process,
would not hold any water.
19. Following the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the above case, and as this Court has already
arrived at a conclusion that, the writ petitioner has proved
that, the entire selection process has been vitiated as the
eligibility criteria enshrined in the notification dated
06.03.2012, (Annexure-B) and the guidelines (Annexure-C)
has not been followed, I find force in the submission made
by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as
the petitioner has made out case for interference in this
petition. It is useful to extract paragraphs 59 to 63 in the case
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
of Mamata Mohanty (supra), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court
has held as under:
“59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action
and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every
action of the State or its instrumentalities should
not only be fair, legitimate and above board but
should be without any affection or aversion. It
should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor
even give an impression of bias, favouritism and
nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied
mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary
action where statute confers wide power coupled
with wide discretion on an authority. If the
procedure adopted by an authority offends the
fundamental fairness or established ethos or
shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated.
The decision-making process remains bad. [Vide
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial
Corpn , Rash Lal Yadav (Dr.) v. State of Bihar and
Tata Cellular v. Union of India .
60. In State of A.P. v. Nalla Raja Reddy
[AIR 1967 SC 1458] a Constitution Bench of this
Court observed as under : (AIR p. 1468, para 23)
“23. … Official arbitrariness is more
subversive of the doctrine of equality than
statutory discrimination. In respect of a statutory
discrimination one knows where he stands, but the
wand of official arbitrariness can be waved in all
directions indiscriminately.”
61. Similarly, in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of
India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] , a Constitution Bench
of this Court observed as under : (AIR p. 1434,
para 14)
“14. … absence of arbitrary power is the
first essential of the rule of law upon which our
whole constitutional system is based. … the rule of
law from this point of view means that decisions
should be made by the application of known
principles and rules and, in general, such
decisions should be predictable and the citizen
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
should know where he is. If a decision is taken
without any principle or without any rule it is
unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis
of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of
law.”
(See also Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas
Bhanji [1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] .)
62. It is a matter of common experience that
a large number of orders/letters/circulars, issued
by the State/statutory authorities, are filed in court
for placing reliance and acting upon it. However,
some of them are definitely found to be not in
conformity with law. There may be certain such
orders/circulars which are violative of the
mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India.
While dealing with such a situation, this Court in
Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P. came across
with an illegal order passed by the statutory
authority violating the provisions of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution. This Court simply brushed
aside the same without placing any reliance on it
observing as under : (SCC p. 625, para 9)
“9. … The said order was not challenged in
the writ petition as it had not come to the notice of
the appellants. It has been filed in this Court along
with the counteraffidavit…. This order [is also
deserved] to be quashed as it is not consistent
with the statutory rules. It appears to have been
passed by the Government to oblige the
respondents….”
(emphasis added)
63. The whole exercise done by the State
authorities suffers from the vice of arbitrariness
and thus is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be given effect
to.”
Taking into consideration the observations made
above that, the respondent-University has appointed the 4th
respondent dehorse to the notification and the guidelines
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
(Annexure-B and C respectively) and the selection of the 4th
respondent is in contravention of the same, hence, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) Order dated 28.09.2012 (Annexure-A) appointing the
4th respondent to the post of Assistant professor
reserved for women(GM) in the Department of
Agricultural Engineering is quashed.
iii) The respondent-University is directed to recalculate
the marks produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition in
terms of the notification dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-B)
and the guidelines produced at AnnexureC to the writ
petition within an outer limit of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to
announce the results accordingly.”
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an
appeal in W.A.No.508/2023, which came to be dismissed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide final order dated
27.07.2023. So also, the appeal before the Apex Court filed by the
petitioner in SLP No.16962/2023 came to be dismissed by the
Apex Court. Subsequently, respondent Nos.2 and 3-University in
its 406th meeting of the Board of Management took a decision to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on humanitarian
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
grounds either by creating a supernumerary post or against a clear
sanctioned post by placing the matter before the Board of
Management to take a decision on obtaining the approval of the
Government. In pursuance of the said decision, in the 406th
Meeting of the Board, legal opinion was sought for by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3-University and in the 406th meeting of the
Board of Management dated 23.04.2025, respondent-University
took a decision to reappoint the petitioner as an Assistant
Professor considering her service of 11.5 years in the light of
judgments of the Apex Court, this court and other High Courts. In
pursuance of the aforesaid decision taken in the 406th Meeting of
the Board of Management of the University of Agricultural Sciences
of the respondent-University, the respondent-University addressed
a communication dated 21.05.2025 (Annexure-C) seeking advice
of the State Government to reappoint the petitioner as an Assistant
Professor of Agricultural Engineering at the respondent-University.
Since the State Government did not take any steps in this regard,
the petitioner approached this court by way of the present petition,
which was filed on 30.08.2025.
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. Subsequent to filing of the present petition, in their
statement of objections, the respondents brought to the notice of
this Court that the respondent-University had rejected the request
of the petitioner for reappointment vide Communication dated
30.10.2025 and as such, the petitioner got the petition amended
and challenged the said communication at Annexure-J dated
30.10.2025 by suitably amending the petition. In this context it is
pertinent to note that the aforesaid impugned communication at
Annexure-J dated 30.10.2025 is based upon a
letter/communication issued by the State Government dated
03.09.2025, which is produced as Annexure-R2 along with the
Statement of Objections filed by the respondent-University.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and would
invite my attention to the aforesaid letter at Annexure-R2 produced
by the respondent-University along with the Statement of
Objections, in order to point out that the said communication, which
formed the basis for the University to reject the claim of the
petitioner was non-speaking, cryptic, laconic and unreasoned and
except stating that the petitioner had been unsuccessful in the
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
previous rounds of litigation, the State Government had not taken
into account the judgments of the Apex Court, this Court and other
High Courts, despite the University specifically stating that the
petitioner was entitled to be reappointed in view of the judgments
relied upon by the petitioner and as such, though the aforesaid
Communication at Annexure-R2, produced along with the
Statement of Objections by the respondent-University at
Annexure-J dated 30.10.2025 issued by the University is based
upon the aforesaid communication at Annexure R2 dated
03.09.2025, it is a fit case to set aside both Annexure-R2 and J and
remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration of the
matter afresh bearing in mind the following judgments:
a) Dr. Sunitha T. Vs. The State of Karnataka and others –
Review Application No.112/2024 dated 05.06.2024.
b) The University of Agricultural Sciences Vs. Sri. Dr.
Digambarappa – W.A.No.100263/2022 C/w.
W.A.No.100264/2022 – dated 24.06.2022 (Dharwad
Bench).
c) The Registrar and others Vs. Sri. Chikkanna and others
– W.A.No.705/2024 & Con. Matters – dated 16.12.2025
(Division Bench).
d) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Preetam Singh and others –
(2014) 15 SCC 774.
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondent-
University would support the claim of the petitioner and reiterated
that in its Communication at Annexure-J dated 31.10.2025, the
respondent-University had sought for the advice of the State
Government for the purpose of reappointment of the petitioner and
it is only because the State Government refused and issued the
Communication at Annexure-R2 dated 03.09.2025, that the
respondent-University was constrained to issue the impugned
endorsement at Annexure-J and as such, the present petition may
be disposed of accordingly.
8. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent-State
submits that as per the university regulations, approval of the State
Government is required and as per the Universities of Agricultural
Sciences Act, 2009 (for short “the said Act of 2009”) and as such,
the respondent-State was clearly justified in refusing to accede to
the request made by the University by issuing Annexure-R2 dated
03.09.2025, which does not warrant interference by this Court in
the present petition, especially since the grants were given by the
State Government.
– 28 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner would invite my attention to Section 7(10) of the said Act
of 2009, in order to point out that the University shall have the
power and function to create teaching, research and extension
education posts and also appoint persons to such post and as
such, the said contention urged by the respondent-State cannot be
accepted, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in
Chikanna’s case (supra).
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
11. Section 7(10) of the said Act of 2009, reads as under:
“7. Powers and functions of the University. – The
University shall have the following powers and functions
namely:-
Xxxx
Xxxx
Xxxxx
(10) to create teaching, research and extension education
posts and to appoint persons to such posts.”
12. In the case of the Secretary to Govt. Vs. Dr. Parappa
Shankarappa and others -W.A.No.968/1998 & W.A.No.1083-86
– 29 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
and W.A.No.1108-29/99 dated 30.09.1999 (Annexure-G) the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“This appeal is filed by the State of Karnataka
questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
so far as it relates to the observations and directions made in
para 10 of the order dated 18.09.1998 in W.P.No.23733-
759/98.
2. The facts of the case are as under:-
Respondents 1 to 10 are professors working in
Karnataka University, Dharwad and respondents 11 to 13
were working in Karnataka University, Dharwad, now retired.
Respondents 14 to 20 are working in Karnataka University
and Respondent No.21 had worked as a Reader in the said
University. Respondents 22 and 23 are working as Sports
Coach and respondents 24 to 27 have retired as sports
coach in the Karnataka University, Dharwad. These
respondents filed writ petition Nos. 23733-759/98 seeking for
a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
appellant to fix the pay in the scale of Rs.3700-5700 with a
further direction to pay arrears with interest, their foundation
of claim an order dated 19.07.1994 being Annexure-L to the
petitions. The said Annexure-L refers to time bound
promotions to the teachers of the Post-Graduate
Department, Karnataka University. Four teachers of the
University namely Sri. S.K. Daniel, Sri F.V. Yavagal, Dr. S.G.
Kadaramandalegi and Dr. S.R. Narappanavar had filed writ
petition in W.P.8505/86 before this Court and their petitions
– 30 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
were disposed of by this Court on 21.04.1994. The relevant
portion of the said order reads as under:-
“From the facts narrated and arguments advanced
it is clear that authorities committed a mistake in
discriminating the nature of work the
Demonstrators/Tutors carrying on the one hand and
Research Assistants, Senior Research Assistants, Micro
Analysts, etc. on the other. Now it is established that
Research Assistants and persons holding other allied
posts were also attached to teaching and in fact were
discharging the duties of a tutor. Services rendered by
Senior Research Assistants while compared to
Demonstrators were quite superior. So also qualification,
when both persons were placed similarly it was Incorrect
to ignore the case of the petitioners and accept only the
case of Demonstrators and Tutors by giving particular
assent amended statute. When the University made a
suggestion to treat both on par and extend the facilities
Chancellor should have considered the said suggestion
instead of withholding it. The position of Research
Assistants and instructors working in UAS and Bangalore
University were almost identical with that of the
petitioners. When the case of these persons was accepted
and given the benefit of Time Bound Promotion taking into
consideration their long standing experience, nature of
work turned, qualification possessed, the same benefit
should have been given to the similarly placed petitioners
in Karnataka University as their case is in no way different
with that of those working in UAS and Bangalore
University. The scale of pay given to the Research
Demonstrators, Tutors, Research Assistants were almost
equal and identical. Nature of work was again identical. As
such Time Bound Promotion should have been given to
the petitioners also. No reason why Annexure-F by the
University was not assented in toto by the Chancellor
partially. When all posts were upgraded as shown at
annexure-A to D case of the petitioners also should have
been considered. Correct understanding of arguments
advanced by both sides will lead to an inference that the
approach of the respondents was not correct. On the other
hand it was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
contentions raised by the petitioners if understood
properly they deserved to be accepted as correct.
“Hence the W.P. is allowed. Orders at Annexure-G
& J are quashed and respondents are directed consider
– 31 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
the case of the petitioners for time bound promotion from
the date on which they were entitled to with all other
consequential benefits. Compliance in 3 months.”
To the said petition, the State Government end
Chancellor were parties which requires to be noted at this
stage. An appeal was filed against the said order in
W.A.2349/95, but at the instance of the University and the
Government, the said appeal came to be dismissed as
having become infructuous in view of the later developments
pleaded by the learned Government Advocate. The
University granted a time bound promotion to 43 teachers
including the petitioners herein and also the other four
petitioners in W.P.8505/86. The Senate of the University
passed appropriate statutes for giving consequential benefits
of time bound promotions to all these 43 persons and sent
the same to the Government for submission to the
Chancellor for his assent under its letter dated 21.3.1998.
During the relevant time, the statutes sent by the University
were still pending consideration. in this background of facts,
the respondents-petitioners filed these petitions providing
seeking for a mandamus for providing consequential
retrospective benefits in terms of Annexure-L dated
19.7.1994. Notices were issued to the respondents and
during the pendency of the Petitions, the Government issued
a letter dated 15.4.1998 and the said letter contained
direction to the University in the matter of implementation of
the statutes. The said letter was placed before the learned
consideration Single Judge. Pending consideration of the
statutes with the Government, the State Government issued
– 32 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the letter dated 15.4.1998 which was placed before the
learned Judge as could be seen from the pleadings.
3. The learned Single Judge had framed two
questions of law as arising from the pleadings of the parties
reading as under:
“(1) Whether it is competent on the part of the
State Government to give directions to the University for
according certain benefits arising out of employment to
any teaching or non-teaching staff of the University
contrary to the statutes or in the absence of any relevant
‘statutes in that regard? and,
(2) Whether the State Government can retain the
draft statutes sent to it for submission to the Chancellor
beyond three months of the date on which it was received
from the University?”
4. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the
various provisions of the Karnataka Universities Act, in
particular Sections 35 and 36, came to a conclusion that
under Section 36(4) it is mandatory on the part of the State
Government to submit the statute sent by the Senate for
consideration within three months and the Chancellor has to
take a final decision with regard to the grant of approval to
the statute within one month from the date of receipt by the
State Government. The learned single noticed that the
Government has not submitted the statute to the Chancellor
ever after lapse of six months and the Government is duty
bound to submit the statute sent by the University to the
Chancellor for his assent within the time limit fixed under the
Act. In the course of the arguments, the learned Advocate
General appearing for the State submitted that the lapse in
the present case may be ignored as a one time measure with
an assurance that there will be strict compliance with the
– 33 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
legislative mandate with a further assurance that within one
month from today the Government will submit the statutes in
question to the Chancellor for due considerations. However,
the learned Single Judge, while considering the powers of
the State Government, to give directions to the University, in
para 10 of the order has ruled as under:-
“So far as the second question regarding powers
of the State Government to give directions to the
Universities are concerned, despite turning of each page
of the Universities Act both by the learned Advocate
General as also the Counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the University, no provisions could be located under
which the State Government can give a direction to the
University with regard to the discharge of its functions or
pertaining to the matters which are to be essentially
covered by the statutes which are framed under Section
35 read with Section 36 of the Act. In that view of the
matter it is expected rather directed that the State
Government should henceforth forbear from giving any
direction to any University established under the
Universities Act which are required to be governed by the
specific statutory provisions or the delegated legislations
like the Statutes. Any violation in this regard on the part of
the Government will be dealt with as committing contempt
of this Court. I find making of such observation necessary
because in various cases I have found that the
Government, of late, have been prevailing on which
Universities which are creatures of the Act by treating
those as Departments Government. This impression
needs to be dispelled.”
It appears now the petitioners have been provided
retrospective benefits by the University. As mentioned
earlier, the State Government is aggrieved only with regard
to the finding of the learned Judge that the State
Government cannot, issue directions to the University as
observed in paragraph 10. It is this finding that is challenged
before us.
– 34 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. We have heard the learned Advocate General at
length and perused the material on record and the order of
the learned Single Judge. The learned Advocate General
assailed the finding of the learned Single Judge stating that
the impugned order with regard to power of the Government
in the matter of issue of directions requires reconsideration.
Alternatively he submitted that the contents of the letter
would show that it is not a direction at all and in view of the
anxiety on the part of the Government in implementing the
order, such a letter was issued to the University. Elaborating
his submissions, the learned Advocate General referred to
various provisions of the Act and in particular to Sections
4,5,8,9,41 and 44 and contended the Government has a say
in the matter, since the Government is financing the
University and therefore no fault can be found with the
Government in issuing directions. He stated that the
Government has the necessary powers flowing under the Act
in the light of these provisions. He also relied on the
judgments reported in AIR 1974 S.C. 1232, AIR 1988
S.C.481, 1982 (1) SCR 259, 1984 (1) SCC 302. In
concluding the learned Advocate General submitted that in
view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it cannot
be said that the Government has no power at all to issue of
directions even with regard to service matters. The learned
Counsel for the University did not make any submission and
the learned Counsel for the respondents stated that already
consequential benefits have been granted to his clients in the
matter.
– 35 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. After hearing the learned Counsel on either side
and after giving our anxious consideration to the arguments
advanced by the learned Advocate General, we have to see
as to whether the State Government, in the light of Sections
35 and 36 of the Act, has the necessary power to give
directions as held by the learned Single Judge in para 10 of
the impugned order.
7. At the outset it should be stated that the
Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (‘the Act’ for short) is
an Act for providing a uniform law relating to the Universities
in the State of Karnataka. Large number of ministerial staff
do work in the University and their service conditions are to
be regulated for proper functioning and for maintaining
proper education in Universities in terms of the statutes.
Chapter V deals with statutes providing for all or any of the
following matters namely:-
(a) the constitution, functions and powers of the
Authorities of the University and such other bodies as
may be declared to be the Authorities of the University
from time to time;
(b) the election and continuance in office of the members
of the said Authorities or bodies, including the
continuance in office of the first members and the filling
of vacancies of members and all other matters relating to
those Authorities or bodies of which it may be necessary
or desirable to provide;
(c) the conferment of Honorary Degrees;
(d) holding of convocations for conferring degrees and
diplomas;
(e) the withdrawal of degrees, diplomas, certificates and
other academic distinctions;
(f) the establishment, maintenance and abolition of
faculties, departments, hostels, colleges and institutions:
– 36 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
(g) the conditions under which colleges may be affiliated
and such affiliation may be withdrawn:
(h) the institution of fellowships, scholarships,
studentships, exhibitions, medals and prizes:
(i) the institution, suspension or abolition or
Professorships, Readerships, , Lecturerships, ministerial
and non-teaching posts:
(ia) institution of temporary posts of Lecturers, part-time
posts of Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Readers and
Professors or temporary posts of any class or classes of
non-teaching staff, for any specified period not exceeding
one year;
(j) the procedure to be followed at meetings of such other
Authorities or bodies including the quorum for the
transaction of the business by them;
(k) the classification of teachers of the University and of
the affiliated colleges;
(l) the method of recruitment of teachers;
(m) the conditions of service including emoluments of the
employees of the University;
(n) the acceptance and management of bequests,
donations and endowments;
(o) the registration of graduates and maintenance of the
register of registered graduates;
(p) fees to be charged for the courses of study in the
University and in the affiliated colleges and for
admissions to the examinations, degrees and diplomas
of the University;
(q) fees to be charged for the services rendered by the
University; and
(r) all other matters which by this Act are to be the
Statutes.”,
We are concerned only with Section 35(m) pertaining
to the conditions of service of the employees. Section 36
deals with the Statutes their making and the statutes passed
by the Senate. The State Government shall transmit the
statutes passed by the Senate, along with its comments to
– 37 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the Chancellor within three months of the date on which it
received the statutes from the University. Sub-section (5) of
Section 36 of the Act makes it clear that no statute passed
by the Senate shall have validity until assented to by the
Chancellor. A careful reading of Sections 35 and 36 makes it
clear that a statute has to be required to be framed providing
for conditions of service including emoluments of the
employees of the University. A reading of Section 36 would
indicate that such a statute is to be sent to the Chancellor by
the State Government with its opinion within three months of
the date on which it was received and the Chancellor, within
one month of the date of receipt of the statutes from the
State Government give or withhold his assent thereto or refer
it to the Senate for further consideration. In the light of these
two provisions, it is very clear that the State Government
cannot said to have any authority or power to issue
directions to the University in the matter of service conditions
of its employees. It is only the statute under Section 35 (m)
that can dictate the service conditions of the employees of
the University. All that the State Government has to do is to
offer its opinion under Section 36 and send it to the
Chancellor for his assent. The State Government’s power is
very limited as could be seen from sub-Section (4) of Section
36 of the Act.
8. The learned Advocate General, as mentioned
earlier, referred to the various provisions to contend that the
Government has the necessary power to have necessary
control. Chapter II of the Act deals with the establishment
and incorporation of Universities. The State Government, if
– 38 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
so desire, may seek for inspection under Section 8 of the
Act. Chapter III deals with Officers of the University.
Similarly, Chapter IV deals with Authorities of University such
as Senate, Syndicate and Academic Council, their powers
and functions etc. No other provision except Sections 35 and
36 of the Act deal with the service conditions including
emoluments of the employees of the University as held by
the learned Single Judge. Therefore we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge cannot said to have committed any
error In holding that the Government cannot issue directions
in the absence of any other power under the Act. Moreover ,
the service conditions of the employees of the University is
governed by a statute in terms of Section 35(m). Such
statutes have to be sent to the Chancellor for approval
through the State Government. Conditions of service of
University employees are covered under Section 35(m) of
the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the State
Government cannot issue a any directions in a respect of
“covered matter” under the Act and any further directions in
respect of covered matter would render such covered matter
ineffective and inoperative if power to issue directions is
made available to the State Government. That is not the
object of the Act. The various provisions referred to by the
learned Counsel do not in any way water down the impact of
Section 35(m) r/w. Section 36. The apprehension of the
learned Advocate General with regard to the “finance” is
taken care of under the Section 36(4) since the Government
can offer its opinion to the Chancellor at the time of approval.
The power to offer opinion under Section 36 cannot be
– 39 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
equated to “Directory” power to Government. Approval by
itself does a not empower the Government to issue a
direction as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Though
the learned Single Judge ruled in paragraph 10 that no
provision could be located under which the State
Government can give a direction to the University with regard
to the discharge of its functions or pertaining to the matters
which are to be essentially governed by the statutes which
are framed under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Act,
it has to be read as meaning that on the facts of this case, in
view of the issue being covered under Section 35(m) of the
Act, the Government on cannot further issue directions
styling it implementation process. If the power of direction is
conceded, then the University would be rendered as any
other Department of the Government without powers under,
Section 35 of the Act. The University an autonomous body
constituted under a statue cannot be converted into a wing of
the Government amenable to any directions in respect of the
matter covered under Section 35m of the Act. Further,
accepting the directive power of the State Government in
respect of a covered matter would result in surrendering the
legitimate authority under the Act to the State Government.
The legislature has The entrusted the power of regulating the
service conditions of its employees, to the Chancellor of the
University through Government. The executive power cannot
be exercised in respect of a matter covered by law. In the
case on hand, a competent legislature has conferred the
power to the University under Section 35(m) of the Act. The
State, in exercise of its executive power, cannot encroach
– 40 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
upon that power not vested with it under the statute by its
executive act. Thus, there is no legislative sanction to issue
directions to the University, but there is an impleading
limitation of its executive power in the matter of directions.
9. The learned Advocate General has cited various
judgments as referred to above. The first Judgment AIR
1974 S.C.1232 (NARAINDAS INDURKHYA V. THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.) deals with power State
Government to prescribe of text books for schools. AIR 1988
S.C. 481 (AARTI GUPTA & ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB &
ORS.) is again judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter
of admission to medical and dental colleges. 1982(1) SCR
759 (STATE OF M.P. & ANR. V. KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN &
ORS.) is with regard to rules for admission in Medical, Dental
and Ayurvedic colleges in Madhya Pradesh. Similarly,
judgment in 1984(1) SCC 302 (KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY
ETC. V. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC.) is a
case dealing with admissions vis-a-vis State Government
orders laying down the criteria for admission. These are not
cases governing service conditions of University employees
as in the present case. Therefore those judgments are not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
10. On the other hand, the judgment of the case
Supreme Court in ALL KERALA PRIVATE COLLEGE
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION V. THE NAIR SERVICE
SOCIETY & ORS. (1994(4) SLR 464) is a case dealing with
teachers of the University and also the power of the State
Government. In that case, the State, purporting to exercise
– 41 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
powers under the Act, issued certain orders under which
there was intra University transfer of teachers of various
colleges. The same was questioned in Kerala High Court.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. A Division
Bench allowed the appeal and thereby struck down the
statutues submitted for the second time. The matter was
taken to Supreme Court in the said judgment. Since there
were different Acts for different The Universities, the
Supreme after Court referring to the different University Acts
ruled that the State Government has a very limited power to
issue the first statute under Section 83 of the State
Government and the State Government having issued a first
statute cannot issue second statute in the absence of
statute. It allowed and appeal and quashed the statute as
held by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. The
Supreme Court has referred to Dr.S. Radhakrishnan’s
University Education Commission’s Report, 1950 reading as
under:-
“….We must resist in the Interest of our
democracy, the trend towards the Governmental
domination of the educational process…Higher to be
confused with State control over academic policy and
practices. Our Universities should be released from the
control of politics….”
The Supreme Court has referred to the passage of
Dr.S.Radhakrishnan’s Report and has further noticed as
under:-
“The avowed object with which the two acts and
the Gandhi Act have been enacted by the Kerala
Legislature, is to leave the pursuit of the higher
education under the control and management of various
academic bodies of the Universities. Even the framing of
– 42 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
the statutes and ordinances which have the force of law
– are left to the Senate and the Syndicate of the
respective Universities.”
The Supreme Court again at para 8 has noticed as
under:-
“We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the rival contentions raised by the parties. We are
inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the
learned Counsel for the respondent 1. The universities
were incorporated and brought into existence on the
date the Two Acts were enforced, but the Senate and
other bodies of universities were yet to be constituted.
The provisions of the Two Acts are not exhaustive. The
fields which are left to be covered by the statutes have
been enumerated under Section 34 of the Two Acts.
The universities could not started functioning unless
there were statutes existence immediately after the
enforcement of the Two Acts providing for the
constitution of the Senate/other bodies of the
universities and other regulatory provisions necessary
for the functioning of the universities. To meet this
eventuality, the legislature has given “one time’ power to
the State Government to frame the “First Statute” under
Section 83 of the Two Acts. When the is constituted and
becomes functional then it is the only authority under
the Two Acts to frame the statutes. We fail to
understand how the State Government can frame the
statutes when the Senate is functioning. There cannot
be two parallel authorities to make subordinate
legislation on the same subject matter. In view of the
scheme of the two Acts, it is not possible to contend that
the Senate has no power to make statutes on a subject
for the first time. We do not agree with the learned
counsel for the appellant that the State Government has
the power to keep on making “First Statutes” till it
exhausts all the subjects/topics on which statutes could
be framed under the Two Acts. This agreement goes
contrary to the very object and purposes of the Two
Acts.”
In a somewhat similar situation, the Supreme Court
negatived the power of direction of the State Government in
the matter of service conditions of the Electricity Board
– 43 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Employees of Bihar 1992 SCC (L & S) 866 (RAKESH
RANJAN VERMA & OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR &
ORS.). In that case, the Board issued an advertisement with
regard to recruitment of Junior Electrical Engineers. A merit
list was prepared but candidates were not appointed being in
excess of the then available posts. The State Government
issued directions purporting to exercise powers under
Section 78-A and directing the Board to absorb against the
post of Junior Electrical Engineers (JEES) which became
available later during 1984-85. Board, instead of complying
with the directions, issued fresh advertisements. This led to a
litigation ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court in paras 10 and 11 has ruled as under:
“The above provision clearly lays down that the
Board shall be guided by such directions on questions
of policy as may be given any questions of policy. So
far as the appointment of staff is concerned, Section 15
empowers the Board to appoint such officers and
employees as may be required to enable the Board to
carry out its functions under the Act. Section 15 of the
Act reads as under:
“Appointment of staff–The Board may appoint a
Secretary and such other officers and employees as
may be required to enable the Board to carry out its
functions under this Act:
Provided that the appointment of the Secretary
shall be subject to the approval of the State
Government.”
11. Thus, under the proviso to Section 15, it is
only the to appointment of the Secretary which is
subject to the approval of the State Government. So far
as other staff is concerned, it lies with the Board to
make appointment of all officers and employees as may
be required enable the Board to carry out its functions
under the act. Thus, we agree with the view taken by
– 44 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the High Court in this regard that the direction given by
the State Government to appoint the appellants as
Junior Engineers by the Board does not involve any
matter of policy and it would be an encroachment оn the
powers of the Board given under Section 15 of the Act.
It is not in dispute that the life of the panel was one year
which came to an end on September 13, 1985 and that
being so no right can be claimed by the applicants after
September 13, 1985 and that being so no right can be
claimed by the appellants after September 13, 1985 on
the basis of inclusion of their names in the panel list of
1984 for the posts of Junior Electrical Engineers. So far
of giving any undertaking as is concerned, we are in
agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for
the undertaking appellants that such cannot that estop
such the appellants from being considered for the future
vacancies of the Junior Electrical Engineers and the
appellants cannot be deprived for all times to come. The
Post of Junior Electrical Engineer is now governed by
the Bihar State Electricity Board Junior Electrical
Engineer (General) Cadre Rules, 1982 and specially
Rule 7 read with modification made by notification dated
October 14, 1988 issued under Section 79(c) of the Act
which reads as follows:-
“Appointments to the posts of Junior Electrical
Engineers from amongst the employees of the Board
having Diploma in Electrical Engineering will be made
on the basis of recommendations of a Selection
Committee which will be constituted by the Chairman for
the purpose. The Selection Committee will examine the
records and interview the candidates who obtain
Diploma in Electrical Engineering while in the service of
the Board along with those employees who had
obtained Diploma Electrical Engineering before joining
the service of the Board.” who had in
11. The two judgments referred to above support our
view that in a covered matter pertaining to employees’
emoluments, the Government cannot issue any directions to
the University. In the case on hand, the letter dated
15.4.1998 is a direction to the University to extend time
bound promotion with all consequential benefits to Sri.Daniel
and others in para 4. The said direction is also subject to
– 45 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
conditions. Such directions cannot be issued particularly in
the light of an earlier order and in the light of Section 35(m)
read with Section 36 of the Act.
12. In conclusion, in the light of our earlier
discussions, we hold that the learned Single Judge is right in
holding that State Government lacks competence to issue
directions to the University in the matter of conditions of
service including emoluments of the employees of the
University under Section 35(m) of the Act. We dispose of the
appeal with the clarification that the observation made by
learned Judge in para 10 is to be understood with regard to
the service conditions of employees of University covered
under Section 35(m) of the Act only. Writ Appeal filed by the
Government is dismissed and the order of the learned Single
Judge is confirmed with the above clarification. No costs.”
13. In the case of the University of Agricultural
Sciences Vs. Sri. Dr. Digambarappa and othrs –
W.A.No.100263/2022 C/w. W.A.No.100264/2022 – dated
24.06.2022 (Dharwad Bench) (Annexure-H), the Hon’ble Division
Bench held as under:
“These intra-Court appeals call in question the
judgment dated 03.06.2022 rendered in 1st respondent’s
Writ Petition No.100928/2022 (S-RES). The appeal in W.A.
No.100263/2022 is by the University and the companion
appeal in W.A. No.100264/2022 is by the 3rd respondent in
the writ petition. The said judgment of the learned Single
– 46 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
Judge is to the effect that the writ petitioner should be
appointed to the post of Director, he being the senior most,
and seniority being the sole criteria.
2. The 1st respondent in both these appeals was the
writ petitioner and he has entered caveat through his
counsel. The 2nd respondent-State is represented by the
learned Government Advocate. 3rd respondent in the Writ
Petition is the appellant in W.A. No.100264/2022. He is 3rd
respondent in the companion appeal and is represented by a
private advocate. All the opposing advocates resist the claim
of writ petitioner who opposes the writ appeals. 3rd
respondent supports the appeal of University. For
convenience of understanding, the parties would be referred
to with their ranking in the writ petition
3. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:-
a) Petitioner had knocked at the doors of Writ Court for
assailing the placement of 3rd respondent in the post of
Director of Education and his own placement in the post of
Dean. The sole factor for such a claim was that he was the
senior most in the cadre of Professor. For this petitioner
heavily banked upon the Government Order dated
14.11.2019 and Chancellor’s instructions dated 28.01.2022.
Thus, his essential grievance is that he being the senior
most and 3rd respondent admittedly being junior to him,
petitioner ought to have been given the post of Director and
the 3rd respondent could have been made the Dean.
b) The University and the 3rd respondent had opposed the
Writ Petition mainly contending that the appointment in
– 47 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
question is purely temporary and for a period of only six
months; such appointments are to be made on rotation
basis; petitioner was accordingly appointed as a Director
earlier and therefore now the 3rd respondent is given that
position; petitioner cannot have any grievance since he is
given the post of Dean, which is equivalent to that of
Director.
c) The subject letter dated 14.11.2019 issued by the Under
Secretary in the Department of Agriculture, is not a
Government Order. The Chancellor’s letter dated 28.01.2022
only instructs adherence to the extant norms. Mr. Jagadish
Patil, learned advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent in
the Writ Petition submits that the writ petitioner has not
suffered any legal injury to have maintained the writ petition.
Learned GA made his submissions on the position of law
maintaining equi-distance from the warring private parties.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) Section 24 of the Universities of Agricultural Sciences Act,
2009 enlists Officers of the University which, inter alia,
comprise of Directors & Deans. Section 30 empowers the
Vice-Chancellor to appoint officers specified in clauses (iv) to
(ix) of Section 24. It reads as under:
“30. Terms and Conditions of service of other
officers of the University.- The Officers of the University
specified in clause (iv) to (ix) of section 24 shall be
appointed by the Vice-Chancellor with the approval of
the Board on such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed:
– 48 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may make
appointments of such officers as a temporary measure
for a period of six months under intimation to the
concerned authority of the University.”
b) The substantive part in Section 30 provides for making
regular appointment, whereas the proviso provides for
making appointment to the said posts as a ‘temporary
measure’, presumably because regular appointment takes
long time and that posts in question cannot be kept vacant
for long. It is significant to note that this Section speaks of
appointment to specific posts; it specifies the Appointing
Authority i.e., the Vice-Chancellor; provision to the section,
however, specifies six months as the tenure of appointment;
it also states that such appointments are by way of
temporary measure. It is also significant to note that the
Vice-Chancellor is treated as ‘Conscience Keeper’ of the
University concerned, said the Apex Court in Marathawada
University Vs. Seshrao Balwantrao Chavan, AIR 1989 SC
1582. In the light of all this, the regularity of the impugned
proceedings has to be assumed and therefore, the writ
petitioner has to make out a very strong case for
interference, this being not a case of regular appointment.
c) The concept of ad hoc appointment is not alien to Service
Jurisprudence; it is a common knowledge that civil servants
are appointed on incharge or independent charge basis, in
the posts only as a temporary measure, under Rule 32 of
KCSRs. In such cases, ordinarily, the seniority does not
much factor. A learned Single Judge of this Court in
B.N.DHOTRAD VS. THE BOARD OF
– 49 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIRECTORS/CUMAPPELLATE AUTHORITY AND
OTHERS ILR 2006 KAR 3163 at para 12 observed as under:
“12. In-charge arrangements and promotion are well
understood in Civil Service. Posting an Officer in the
lower post to discharge the duties of the higher post
without promotion is only an in-charge arrangement. It
is the exigencies of public service that will be the
relevant consideration and not the consideration of
seniority while making such arrangement. A person
was posted on independent charge basis does not hold
the post on promotion. Under Rule 32 of KCSR, any
employee in the next below post/cadre can be placed
in charge or independent charge of a higher post.
Similarly, in accordance with Rule 68 of the K.C.S.R. a
Government servant can be appointed to be incharge
of the current duties of an office in addition to his own
duties. He need not be the senior most. Generally,
such arrangements are made for a short period.”
d) Ordinarily seniority has a pivotal role, while making
promotions on regular & substantive basis. However, when it
comes to making ad hoc appointments as the ones at hands,
ordinarily seniority takes the backseat. This is not to say that
the authority in making ad hoc placement can choose
whomsoever it wants; even there the requirement of fairness
& reasonableness cannot be dispensed with. The proviso to
Section 30 does not say anything about seniority whilst
making appointment as a temporary measure. The
appointment process has to be normative since it is done in
the exercise of statutory power, is true. There is some
discretion that avails to the appointing authority even u/S 30
of the Act also, cannot be disputed. However, any discretion
has to be exercised in accordance with the rules of Reason
& Justice said Lord Halsbury in SHARP VS. WAKEFIELD
(1891) AC 173.
– 50 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
e) The Board of Management of appellant-University, in its
meting held on 25.01.2019, resolved that such temporary
appointments shall be made on rotation basis. This
resolution gains credence under Section 13(1)(xiv) of the
Act. Following is the text of said Resolution:
“Item No.44.14:
Appointment of various posts of Officers on
temporary basis in UAS, Dharwad.
While discussing on this item, the Members of the
Board request to change the incumbent Officers
immediately as has already been resolved by the
Board in its 44th Meeting held on 29.10.2018. There
was also a discussion regarding the possibility of inter-
changing the positions held by Officers. Dr.
P.S.Pandey, Hon’ble Member, suggested that as it is
necessary to follow the provisions of UAS Act and the
practice of inter changing the positions is not correct
and it is not followed in any university including CAU
and hence the rotation has to be made by the fresh
incumbent. It was agreed upon by all the members of
Board of Management and the Board again authorized
the Hon’ble vice-Chancellor and requested to take
suitable temporary measure for a period of six months
inline with the provisions of UAS Act 2009, early as
possible, till the Officers’ posts are appointed on
regular basis.”
f) After all in matters of ad hoc appointments, seniority
cannot be the sole/soul mantra. The Board comprising of
high authorities & experts in its wisdom has prescribed the
rule of rotation so that every eligible aspirant for the posts in
question shall get some booster that would go a long way in
his career. It is also a way to attract & retain talented
teachers in the campus. The above Resolution is not in
challenge. In fact, the writ petitioner was appointed as the
Director during the period between 01.08.2018 &
01.02.2019. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor had no option
– 51 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
than to appoint 3rd respondent as the Director. Had he not
done this, he would have committed an actionable wrong
qua the said respondent. Therefore, petitioner is not justified
in staking his claim to the post in question over again. An
argument to the contrary would breach the Rule of Rotation
promulgated by the August Body of the University. If a
contention to the contrary is accepted, the senior most
person shall continue in the said post beyond six months
only with an artificial break every time which the law &
reason shun. This aspect having not been discussed in the
impugned judgment, there is an error apparent on its face.
g) The vehement contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the Government Order dated
14.11.2019 mandatorily prescribes the Rule of Seniority is
misconceived. Firstly, it is only an ordinary letter issued by
the Under Secretary, Mr. H.N.Lakshmanagowda. The same
reads as under:
“PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå / PÀÈE 24 PÀÈ«« 2019
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀrUÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.11.2019,
“dgÀÆgÀÄ”
EªÀjAzÀ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
EªÀjUÉ,
PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ/zsÁgÀªÁqÀ/gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀ
PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ,
PÀȶ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ,
PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ,
– 52 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: gÁdå PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è
SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥Àæ¨Ás gÀzÀ°èj¸ÀĪÀ
PÀÄjvÀÄ.
* * * * *
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ, «zsÁ£À ¥ÀjµÀvï ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
EvÀgÀgÀÄ, gÁdå PÀȶ «±À é«zÁå®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «±é«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è
SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ eÉõÀ×vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤®ðQë¹, ¤AiÀĪÀĨÁ»gÀªÁV
¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
gÁdå ªÀÄlÖzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ gÁdå
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ºÉZÀÄ ÑªÀj ¥Àæ¨ÀgÀzÀ°èj¸À®Ä ¤tð¬Ä¹zÀÝ°è, ¸ÀÆPÀÛ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß eÉõÀ×vÁ
C£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èj¸ÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß KPÀgÀÆ¥À ¥Àj¤AiÀĪÀÄ PÀgÀr£À°è ¸ÉÃj¹
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ¥æ¸ÀÄÛvÀ gÁdåzÀ J¯Áè PÀȶ «±é«zÁå®AiÀÄ, PÀȶ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÁ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁj
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥Àæ¨Ás gÀzÀ°èj¸À®Ä ¤tð¬Ä¹zÀÝ°è eÉõÀ×vÁ C£ÀĸÁgÀªÉà »jAiÀÄ
C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥Àæ¨Ás gÀzÀ°èj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ M§â C¢üPÁjUÉ MAzÀÄ
ºÀÄzÉÝVAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥Àæ¨Ás gÀzÀ°è Ej¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä
¤zÉÃð¹vÀ£ÁVzÉÝãÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ
(ºÉZï.J£ï.®PÀëöätUËqÀ)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ D¢Ã£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ)”
The letter lacks the trappings of a Government Order. This
apart, what authority the Under Secretary had, to prescribe
seniority as the norm for appointments of the kind is not
demonstrated. Learned counsel could not secure any
support from the reading of Section 8 & 10 of the Act to
substantiate his contention that the Government has power
to issue such instructions. Section 8 gives some power,
arguably true; however prescribed conditions &
circumstances for such interference are apparently lacking.
Section 10 gives power to the Chancellor to do certain things
– 53 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
at the instance of Government; but the Government on it’s
own can not issue any direction to the University.
h) Universities are not the notional extensions of the
government departments, nor their vassals. They are
autonomous bodies and therefore their autonomy should be
respected. The Secretaries of the Government Departments
cannot interfere in the affairs of Universities in the absence
of statutory power and the justification for its exercise, both
of which are absent in the case at hands. A learned single
Judge of this Court in DR. PARAPPA SHANKARAPPA VS.
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ILR 1999 KAR 282
had pungently observed, at paragraph 10 as under:
“10. So far as the second question regarding powers of
the State Government to give directions to the
Universities are concerned, despite turning of each
page of the Universities Act both by the learned
Advocate-General as also the Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the University, no provision could be
located under which the State Government can give a
direction to the University with regard to the discharge of
its functions or pertaining to the matters which are to be
essentially governed by the statutes which are framed
under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Act. In that
view of the matter it is expected rather directed that the
State Government should henceforth forbear from giving
any direction to any University established under the
Universities Act which are required to be governed by
the specific statutory provisions or the delegated
legislations like the statutes. Any violation in this regard
on the part of the Government will be dealt with as
committing contempt of this Court. I find making of such
observation is necessary because in various cases I
have found that the Government, of late, have been
prevailing on the Universities which are creatures of the
Act by treating those as departments of the
Government. This impression needs to be dispelled.”
– 54 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
The above observations were made in September 1998 i.e.,
a little less than a quarter century ago. However, the
governmental authorities being as callous as can be,
continue to poke their nose in the affairs of the Universities.
This, we say with no joy in heart. What further irks us is that
the above letter has been issued by an Under Secretary of
the Department, in gross disregard of the resolution dated
25.01.2019 passed by the Board of Management.
i) The vehement contention of learned counsel for the writ
petitioner that the matter having been brought to the notice
of the Chancellor, His Excellency has caused a letter dated
28.01.2022 directing the University to follow the Rule of
Seniority as a norm for making ad hoc appointment to the
posts in question, again is bit difficult to agree with. That is
not its purport. The said letter is reproduced below:
KARNATAKA GOVERNOR’S SECRETARIAT
RAJ BHAVAN,
BENGALURU
No. GS 02 AUD 2022 DATE: 28-01-
2022
FROM
The Special Secretary to Governor,
Raj Bhavan, Bengaluru.
TO
The Vice Chancellor,
University of Agricultural Sciences,
Krishinagar, Dharwad.
Sir,
Sub: Forwarding of D O Letter of Sri
Basavaraj S. Horatti, Hon’ble Chairman
K L C -reg.
Ref: D.O. letter No. KLC: CHMN: 1484 :
2022, dated 13-01-2022 from Sri
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Basavaraj S. Horatti, Hon'ble
Chairman, Karnataka Legislative
Council.
*****
With reference to the above subject, I am
directed to forward herewith a copy of D.O. letter cited
at reference which is self explanatory.
Further you are directed to ensure strict
compliance to the laid down
Rules/Statues/Regulations etc., in regard to placing of
Professors Higher Academic Grades and Senior
professors as in-charge of Director/Dean/Registrar
posts.
Yours faithfully,
(Prathibha D. Habbu)
Under Secretary to
Governor(U)”
A perusal of the letter shows that a direction is issued by the
Chancellor to the University that in making appointment to
posts of the kind, the norms laid down in Rules, Statutes &
Regulations should be strictly followed. It has not said
anything about seniority. On the other hand the Board of
Management has consciously prescribed the norm of
rotation, as the mode of appointment. The very idea of
‘appointment by rotation’ excludes the notion of seniority.
The Vice-Chancellor in issuing the impugned appointment
orders has followed the extant norms. Even this aspect of
the matter has escaped due attention of the learned Single
Judge. Thus, there is an added error apparent on the face of
the impugned judgment.
j) Learned counsel for the Writ petitioner seeks to justify the
impugned Judgment contending that the University orders
that are quashed by the learned Single Judge suffered from
the infirmity of discrimination inasmuch as only his client was
– 56 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
singled out for a step motherly treatment, all others having
been left untouched even when he had a very short stint of
service. We fail to understand as to how others being not
displaced would come to the rescue of petitioner in matters
like this, which involve a host of factors that fall outside
judicial evaluation. It is not that the petitioner has been left
high & dry. Admittedly, he too has been given the post of
Dean. The contention that the post of Dean is comparatively
a bit lower compared to that of Director, does not merit
deeper examination, at our hands given the fact that both the
posts carry same pay scale & emoluments. Even the learned
Single Judge treats the posts enlisted in Clauses (iv) to (ix)
of Section 24 as constituting one common cadre. Clauses 1
& 4 of Section 31 Read with Clauses (iv) to (ix) of Section 24
of the Act lend some credence to this view. If the University
states that posts are equal, the one who questions it has to
make out a strong case to substantiate the contra. That
being the position, no prejudice is shown to have been
caused to the Writ petitioner by virtue of impugned orders of
the University.
In the above circumstances, these appeals succeed.
The impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set
at naught and as a consequence the University orders of
appointment that were quashed by the said Judgment are
hereby resurrected.
Costs made easy.”
– 57 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Preetam
Singh and others – (2014) 15 SCC 774, the Apex Court held as
under:
“The Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
(hereinafter referred to as “the Vikas Parishad”) is a
corporate body. It came into existence, consequent upon the
promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the
1965 Act”). The employees of the Vikas Parishad were
members of a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The
Vikas Parishad desired to grant its employees better retiral
benefits. A proposal was made to extend pensionary
benefits to the employees of the Vikas Parishad, in place of
the existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
2. In furtherance of the aforesaid objective, a
Resolution dated 21-2-1995 was passed, proposing to
replace the existing Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, to
the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. Before
implementation of the Resolution dated 21-2-1995, the Vikas
Parishad considered it expedient to consult the State
Government. In response to the aforementioned
consultation, the State Government through a
Communication dated 16-5-1996 approved the aforestated
substitution conditionally. The conditions depicted in the
aforesaid approval dated 16-5-1996, are being extracted
hereunder:
“Kindly refer to your Letter No. 213/P-1 dated 24-4-
1995 on the aforesaid subject. In this regard, I have been
– 58 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
directed to say that the State Government has no
objection to the proposal of implementing Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme in place of CPF Scheme in
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. But subject to
condition that no financial assistance will be given by the
State Government for implementation of this Scheme and
this Scheme will be run by the Board itself from the
revolving funds created by it.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. Consequent upon the receipt of the aforesaid
approval from the State Government, the Vikas Parishad
circulated a Letter dated 9-7-1996 requiring its employees to
submit their options, as to whether they were desirous of
shifting to the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme,
in place of the existing Contribution Provident Fund Scheme.
4. At the instant juncture, a very vital letter came to be
issued by the State Government on 30-9-1997. The relevant
extract of the aforesaid letter is being reproduced hereunder:
“I have been directed to say that in order to implement
the subject scheme, it is not necessary to initiate any
proceedings required under clause (c) of the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
of the Central Government. Because Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad is governed by the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 and
specific provisions to this effect have been laid down in
Section 95 of the said Act, 1965 according to which
necessary proceedings are to be initiated for obtaining
option from the employees for accepting and/or not
accepting the proposed Pension Scheme.”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals, that even though
the State Government had granted conditional approval to
the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme, through
its Communication dated 16-5-1996, the State Government
– 59 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
expressed the opinion, that the Vikas Parishad did not need
the approval of the State Government for the implementation
of the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme.
5. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, the State Government in its Letter dated 30-9-
1997 clearly informed the Vikas Parishad, that it had the
power to deal with the above issue of its own, under Section
95 of the 1965 Act.
6. Based on the conditional approval granted by the
State Government through its Communication dated 16-5-
1996, and also the clarificatory Letter issued by the State
Government on 30-9-1997, the Vikas Parishad passed a
Resolution on 5-11-1997 approving the Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme. In granting the aforesaid
approval, the Vikas Parishad followed the pensionary
scheme applicable to civil servants of the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
7. Before the Resolution dated 5-11-1997 could be
implemented, the Director General of Bureau of Public
Enterprises addressed a Communication dated 19-11-1997
to the State Government, informing it, that the Vikas
Parishad had not sought its approval before the
implementation of the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity
Scheme. In sum and substance, the Director General of
Bureau of Public Enterprises informed the State
Government, that the action taken by the Vikas Parishad in
implementing the above scheme without its approval, was
not in consonance with law. On the receipt of the letter from
– 60 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the Director General of Bureau of Public Enterprises, the
State Government by its Order dated 26-11-1997 stayed the
implementation of the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity
Scheme.
8. Whilst taking the above action, the State
Government constituted a Sub-Committee to examine the
veracity and viability of the conversion of the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme to the Pension/Family Pension and
Gratuity Scheme, not only with reference to the employees
of the Vikas Parishad, but with reference to the employees of
the other Statutory Corporations, Development Authorities
and Nigams in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The aforesaid
Sub-Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Chief
Secretary of the State, held a meeting on 3-10-1998. In the
above meeting, the Sub-Committee arrived at the
conclusion, that there was no justification for the
implementation of the Pension Scheme in any Statutory
Corporations, Development Authorities or Nigams in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. It was also the view of the Sub-
Committee that the existing Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme, should be continued for all the employees, for the
time being.
9. Even though the above recommendation was made
by the Sub-Committee, yet the Sub-Committee on 2-2-1999
expressed the view, that the aforesaid general determination
recorded in its meeting dated 3-10-1998, should not be
made applicable to the Vikas Parishad. Taking into
consideration the excellent financial condition of the Vikas
– 61 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Parishad, the Sub-Committee observed that the Vikas
Parishad should be permitted to take steps to introduce the
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. It was
however clearly indicated that the Pension/Family Pension
and Gratuity Scheme if introduced for employees of the
Vikas Parishad the same would not create any financial
liability on the State Government.
10. Based on the recommendations of the Sub-
Committee (in its meeting dated 2-2-1999), the State
Government passed an order dated 14-9-1999, withdrawing
its ban/restriction on the implementation of the
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. The relevant
extract of the Letter dated 14-9-1999 is being reproduced
below:
“In this regard, I have been directed to say that the
Government after due consideration in the matter has
decided to withdraw its bar/restriction imposed on the
implementation of the subject Pension Scheme for the
employees of the Board, subject to the following
conditions–
(1) Implementation of the Pension Scheme in the
Board will be completely different from the pension
being given to the employees of the State
Government and this Scheme will be developed in
the form of a distinct/separate trust based on CPF
and such a trust will be run and operated by a Third
Party Pension Fund Manager. This Pension Scheme
shall not have any connection/relation with the
Pension Scheme of the government servants in any
manner whatsoever. This Pension Scheme will be
completely autonomous and will depend on the
financial condition of the pension funds;
(2) Money which will be deposited on this
head/count, will not be spent for any other
count/head, meaning thereby that money so
– 62 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
deposited on this count will be irreversible for any
other purposes and it will be operated by the Trust;
(3) Pension Scheme will be maintained financially
on the basis of contributions made by the Board
towards CPF and no money, apart from the above,
will be paid either by the Board or by the State
Government. Please note that if this Scheme closes
down due to any reason or due to non-availability of
pension funds, then in that eventuality neither the
Government nor the Board will be responsible for
such a closure;
(4) Trust will be fully responsible for all the
financial and economical aspects of the funds of this
Scheme, based upon arrangements made with the
Third Party Pension Fund Manager and
Government/Board will not be responsible for any
loss whatsoever;
(5) Representatives nominated by the Secretary,
Housing and Secretary, Finance, will be amongst
members of the Trust which will be created for the
implementation of the Pension Scheme of the Board;
(6) Commissioner, Housing and Financial
Controller of the Board will be personally responsible
for ensuring strict compliance with the aforesaid
conditions; and
(7) These orders are being issued on the basis of
consent accorded by the Finance Department vide its
D.O. No. 140/99-C-Ten (1) dated 9-8-1999.”
(emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid position was sought to be endorsed by the
State Government on 7-5-2003, wherein the State
Government reiterated the position, that no financial
assistance will be provided by the State Government to the
Vikas Parishad for implementation of the Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme.
– 63 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. All of a sudden, the State Government issued yet
another Letter dated 13-9-2005 staying the earlier
Government Order dated 7-5-2003 (relevant extracts
wherefrom have been reproduced hereinabove). Thereupon,
through a further Communication dated 12-7-2007, the State
Government withdrew its approval altogether. Through the
above Letter dated 12-7-2007, the State Government clearly
informed the Vikas Parishad, that it could not implement the
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. It further
informed the Vikas Parishad, that employees of Public
Enterprises, Statutory Corporations, Development
Authorities and Nigams, who are covered by the Employees’
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 of
the Central Government, and those to whom different
Contributory Provident Fund Schemes were already
applicable, were liable to be governed by the said provisions
and schemes.
12. The denial of permission by the State
Government, as also, the incorporations of the conditions
mentioned above, was sought to be assailed by the
employees of the Vikas Parishad, before the High Court of
Judicature of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) (hereinafter
referred to as “the High Court”), by filing Writ Petition No.
582 (SB) of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by
the impugned judgment dated 16-1-2009 [Preetam
Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 33 : (2009) 2 All
LJ 702] . The Orders issued by the State Government dated
13-9-2005 and 12-7-2007 were expressly quashed. A writ in
the nature of mandamus was issued by the High Court to the
– 64 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Vikas Parishad, requiring it to implement the Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme. In compliance with the
aforesaid direction, the Vikas Parishad implemented the
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme, through
Notification dated 19-5-2009. The relevant extract of the
aforesaid Notification is being reproduced hereunder:
“Now therefore, the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad,
in exercise of the power under clauses (f), (i) and (n) of
sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (U.P. Act 1 of 1996) has
decided that the Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity
admissible to the officers and employees of the State
Government, which is governed by the following rules,
schemes and government orders shall also be admissible
(excluding pension commutation) to the officers and
employees of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad:
1. Civil Service Regulations as applicable in U.P. As
amended
2. Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961. -do-
3. U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 -do-
4. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 -do-
5. All orders of Finance Department of U.P. Government as -do-
related to Pension/Family Pension/Gratuity
6. Newly defined Contributory Rules according to Notification -do-
No. Sa-3-379/das-2005-301(9) of 2003 dated 28-3-2005
applicable to officers and employees of the State
Government, who have joined services on 1-4-2005 or
onwards
The orders with respect to the Pension/Family
Pension/Gratuity issued from time to time by the State
Government shall also be applicable to the officers and
employees of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.”
It would be pertinent to mention, that the aforesaid
notification was expressly extended to such employees of
the Vikas Parishad, who were in service on 1-1-1996. The
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme in terms of the
aforesaid notification, would be applicable only till the
– 65 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
introduction of the newly defined Contributory Fund Rules
framed by the State Government, as were applicable to
employees of the Vikas Parishad who had entered its service
w.e.f. 1-4-2005.
13. In raising a challenge to the impugned judgment
rendered by the High Court on 16-1-2009 [Preetam
Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 33 : (2009) 2 All
LJ 702] , it was the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, that the scheme
could not have been formulated, and given effect to in the
absence of an express approval by the State Government.
Insofar as the instant contention is concerned, the learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the Uttar
Pradesh State Control Over Public Corporation Act, 1975.
Our pointed attention was invited to Section 2(1) thereof,
which is being extracted hereunder:
“2. (1)Power to issue directions to statutory bodies.–
Every statutory body (by whatever name
called), established or constituted under any Uttar
Pradesh Act, excepting Universities governed by the Uttar
Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 as re-enacted and
amended by the Uttar Pradesh University (Re-enactment
and Amendment) Act, 1974, shall, in the discharge of its
functions, be guided by such directions on questions of
policies, as may be given to it by the State Government,
notwithstanding that no such power has expressly been
conferred on the State Government under the law
establishing or constituting such statutory body.”
(emphasis supplied)
Based on the aforesaid provisions, it was the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant, that the State of Uttar
Pradesh, through its Communications dated 13-9-2005 and
12-7-2007, must be deemed to have issued directions to the
– 66 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Vikas Parishad, restraining it from implementing the
Pension/Family Pension and Gratuity Scheme. The
aforesaid directions, according to the learned counsel, were
binding on the Vikas Parishad.
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
first contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel
for the appellant. There can be no doubt that it is open to the
State Government to issue directions on questions of policy
to all the Public Corporations in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in
furtherance of the mandate contained in Section 2(1) of the
1975 Act. It would however be pertinent to mention that the
above directions could be issued only in respect of questions
of policy having a nexus to the “discharge of its functions”.
Insofar as the Vikas Parishad is concerned, we are of the
view that the functions of the Vikas Parishad are relatable
only to the functions stipulated in Section 15 of the 1965 Act.
15. Section 15 aforementioned is being reproduced
hereunder:
“15.Functions of the Board.–(1) Subject to the
provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations, the
functions of the Board shall be–
(a) to frame and execute housing and improvement
schemes and other projects;
(b) to plan and coordinate various housing activities in
the State and to ensure expeditious and efficient
implementation of housing and improvement schemes in
the State;
(c) to provide technical advice for and scrutinise
various projects under housing and improvement
schemes sponsored or assisted by Central Government or
the State Government;
– 67 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
(d) to assume management of such immovable
properties belonging to the State Government as may be
transferred or entrusted to it for this purpose;
(e) to maintain, use, allot, lease, or otherwise transfer
plots, buildings and other properties of the Board or of the
State Government placed under the control and
management of the Board;
(f) to organise and run workshops and stores for the
manufacture and stockpiling of building materials;
(g) on such terms and conditions as may be agreed
upon between the Board and the State Government, to
declare houses constructed by it in execution of any
scheme to be houses subject to the U.P. Industrial
Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act 23 of 1955);
(h) to regulate building operations;
(i) to improve and clear slums;
(j) to provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water-supply
and other civic amenities and essential services in areas
developed by it;
(k) to acquire movable and immovable properties for
any of the purposes before mentioned;
(l) to raise loans from the market, to obtain grants and
loans from the State Government, the Central
Government, local authority and other public corporations,
and to give grants and loans to local authorities, other
public corporations, housing cooperative societies and
other persons for any of the purposes before mentioned;
(m) to make investigation, examination or survey of
any property or contribute towards the cost of any such
investigation, examination or survey made by any local
authority or the State Government;
(n) to levy betterment fees;
(o) to fulfil any other obligation imposed by or under
this Act or any other law for the time being in force; and
(p) to do all such other acts and things as may be
necessary for the discharge of the functions before
mentioned.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules
and regulations, the Board may undertake, where it
– 68 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
deems necessary, any of the following functions,
namely–
(a) to promote research for the purpose of expediting
the construction of and reducing the cost of buildings;
(b) to execute works in the State on behalf of public
institutions, local authorities and other public corporations,
and departments of the Central Government and the State
Government;
(c) to supply and sell building materials;
(d) to coordinate, simplify and standardise the
productions of building materials and to encourage
and organise the prefabrication and mass reduction
of structural components;
(e) with a view to facilitating the movement of the
population in and around any city, municipality, town
area or notified area, to establish, maintain and
operate any transport service, to construct, widen,
strengthen or otherwise improve roads and bridges
and to give financial help to others for such purposes;
(f) to do all such other acts and things as may be
necessary for the discharge of the functions before
mentioned.”
16. In our view, the State of Uttar Pradesh, had the
right to issue directions only in respect of the functions
assigned to the Vikas Parishad under Section 15 of the 1965
Act. The conditions of service of employees, in our
considered view, do not constitute the functions of the Vikas
Parishad, and as such, we are satisfied that the directions
contemplated under Section 2(1) of the 1975 Act, do not
extend to the directions issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh
in the impugned Orders dated 13-9-2005 and 12-7-2007. We
therefore find no merit in the first contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
– 69 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
17. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, it
was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant, that the State of Uttar Pradesh is to shoulder the
financial liabilities of the Vikas Parishad, in the event of its
dissolution. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is
concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on Section 93 of the 1965 Act. The said provision is
being extracted hereunder:
“93.Dissolution of the Board.–(1) If the State
Government is of the opinion that the Board has failed to
carry out its functions under this Act or that for any other
reason, it is not necessary to continue the Board, it may,
by notification in the Gazette, dissolve the Board from
such date as may be specified in the notification.
(2) Upon the publication of a notification under sub-
section (1) dissolving the Board–
(a) the Adhyaksh, the Housing Commissioner and all
members of the Board shall, as from the date of
dissolution, vacate their offices;
(b) all the powers and functions which may, by or under
this Act, be exercised and performed by or on behalf of the
Board or the Housing Commissioner shall, as from the date
of dissolution, be exercised and performed by, and all
subsisting contracts, agreements and other instruments to
which the Board or the Housing Commissioner is a party or
which are in favour of the Board or the Housing
Commissioner may be enforced or acted upon, and all
suits, appeals and other legal proceedings pending by or
against the Board or the Housing Commissioner may be
continued, prosecuted or enforced, by or against the State
Government or such authority or person as it may appoint
in this behalf;
(c) the fund of, and other properties vested in, the
Board shall vest in the State Government; and
(d) all liabilities, legally subsisting and enforceable
against the Board, shall be enforceable against the State
Government to the extent of the fund and properties of the
Board vested in it.
– 70 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of
the State Government in respect of debentures
guaranteed by it under sub-section (2) of Section 59.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
foregoing provisions of this section, the State
Government may at any time again establish a Board
under Section 3 and appoint a Housing Commissioner
under Section 7, and thereupon–
(a) the powers and functions as well as the rights and
liabilities in relation to contracts, agreements and other
instruments, and suits, appeals and other legal
proceedings referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2)
shall re-vest in the Board or the Housing Commissioner, as
the case may be;
(b) the fund and other properties referred to in clause
(c) of sub-section (2) remaining with the State Government
after meeting any liabilities referred to in clause (d) thereof
shall re-vest in the Board.”
18. Having perused Section 93 of the 1965 Act, we
are satisfied, that under clause (d) of Section 93(2), the
financial liability transferable to the State Government in the
event of dissolution of the Board, is limited to the fund and
properties of the Board vested in it. In other words, the State
of Uttar Pradesh in case of dissolution of the Board, would
only bear the responsibility of discharging the liabilities, to
the extent of the properties of the Board which stand
transferred to it. Thus viewed, we are of the opinion that no
financial liability would stand transferred to the State
Government, even in the event of the dissolution of the Vikas
Parishad. Accordingly, we find no merit even in the second
contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for
the appellant.
19. Despite the objections raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant, we shall also venture to determine,
– 71 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
whether the Vikas Parishad was competent to frame
regulations, whereby it could extend the Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme to its employees. In this
behalf, it is relevant to examine Section 95 of the 1965 Act.
The aforesaid provision is being produced hereunder:
“95.Power to make regulations.–(1) The Board
may, by notification in the Gazette, make regulations
providing for–
(a) the time and place of, and the manner of convening,
the meeting of the Board and its committees and Avas
Samitis and their postponement and adjournment;
(b) the procedure and the conduct of business at
meetings of the Board and of its committees and Avas
Samitis;
(c) the appointment, constitution and procedure of
committees;
(d) the delegation of powers by the Housing
Commissioner and officers of the Board;
(e) the duties of officers and servants of the Board;
(f) the conditions of services of officers and servants of
the Board;
(g) the preparation of plans and estimates for works;
(h) the preparation of budgets and estimates;
(i) the authority on which moneys may be paid from the
Board’s fund;
(j) the manner of publication of public notices;
(k) the stamping of facsimile of signatures of the
Housing Commissioner and officers of the Board on
notices, bills and other documents;
(l) the fees payable for copies of documents, estimates
and plans issued by the Board;
(m) the management, use and allotment of buildings
constructed under any housing or improvement scheme;
(n) any other matter which is to be or may be provided
for by regulations under this Act or the rules.
– 72 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
(2) If any regulation is repugnant to any rule then the
rule whether made before or after the regulations shall
prevail and the regulation shall to the extent of the
repugnancy be void.”
A perusal of clause (f) of Section 95(1), with clause (l) of
Section 95(1) would reveal, that the Vikas Parishad is vested
with the right to make regulations, so as to extend to its
employees a scheme in the nature of Pension/Family
Pension and Gratuity Scheme i.e. a scheme similar to the
one framed by the Vikas Parishad on 19-5-2009.
20. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no
merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
21. It is also necessary for us to determine the
consequence of the State of Uttar Pradesh, having
approached this Court, to assail the impugned judgment
dated 16-1-2009 [Preetam Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC
OnLine All 33 : (2009) 2 All LJ 702] . This Court having
entertained the petition filed by the appellant, passed interim
directions on 7-8-2012 [State of U.P. v. Preetam Singh, IA
No. 7 in Civil Appeal No. 6307 of 2010, order dated 7-8-2012
(SC), wherein it was directed:”Taken on board. There shall
be stay of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1433 of 2011
dated 24-7-2012. IA No. 7 is disposed of. Registry is directed
to list IA No. 4 on 27-8-2012, if it is in order.”] , which had the
effect of staying the implementation of the directions issued
by the High Court, namely, of staying the implementation of
the Notification dated 19-5-2009. As a result, the employees
governed by the Notification dated 19-5-2009, were paid
their retiral dues under the Contributory Provident Fund
– 73 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Scheme. Since we have now affirmed the impugned
judgment of the High Court, dated 16-1-2009 [Preetam
Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 33 : (2009) 2 All
LJ 702] , it is apparent that all the eligible employees of the
Vikas Parishad will be governed by the Notification dated 19-
5-2009. They will therefore be entitled to the pensionary
benefits from the date of their retirement. Undoubtedly, they
have been denied the said retiral benefits, consequent upon
the interim orders passed by this Court, at the behest of the
State of Uttar Pradesh. In the above view of the matter, we
direct the Vikas Parishad to release the pensionary benefits
to the retired employees governed by the Notification dated
19-5-2009, within three months from today. While
determining the pensionary benefits payable to the eligible
retired employees up to date, if it is found that any of the
retired employees is entitled to financial dues in excess of
those already paid under the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme, the said employee(s) will be paid interest on the
said amount @ 9% p.a. The burden of the aforesaid interest
component on the differential amount will be discharged by
the Vikas Parishad in the first instance. The same shall,
however, be recovered from the State of Uttar Pradesh, who
is solely responsible for the interest ordered to be paid to the
employees concerned.”
15. In the case of the Registrar and others Vs. Sri.
Chikkanna and others – W.A.No.705/2024 & Con. Matters –
– 74 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
dated 16.12.2025, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held as
under:
“Writ Appeals No.705/2024, 629/2024, 711/2024 and
742/2024 are filed by the University of Agricultural Science
(‘University’ for short) challenging the common order dated
07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petitions No.10632/2021 c/w. 4553/2022, 27469/2023 and
27478/2023. Contempt of Court Case No.646/2024 is filed
alleging willful disobedience of the Order dated 07.03.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27478/2023.
2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshminarayana,
learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Vikram Balaji,
learned advocate and Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Veena T.N, learned
advocate appearing for the private parties; Shri Sachin B.S.,
and Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for the
University; and Shri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional
Advocate General along with Smt. Pramodhini Kishan,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the
appellants are that the respondents are long-serving daily-
wage workers of the University of Agricultural Science
(‘University’ for short) – many of whom have completed 30-
35 years of service. The workers sought for regularisation on
completion of 10 years of service in parity with others who
were already regularised, and non-discrimination in pay and
service benefits.
– 75 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
4. The University in its 379th meeting dated
05.01.2019, resolved to regularise 128 daily-wage
employees including some of the writ petitioners. However,
the Government by letter dated 18.02.2019, withheld
approval to the Board’s decision and later rejected the
regularisation proposal, stating that the employees were
covered under the Welfare Act and not were eligible for
absorption. Consequently, following the Government’s
refusal, the Board in its 386th meeting on 01.09.2020,
withdrew the earlier proposal for regularisation.
5. It was further contended that 171 daily wage
employees including some of the private respondents had
already been granted all statutory benefits under the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012
(‘Welfare Act, 2012’ for short) and that they are not entitled to
seek regularisation.
6. The learned Single Judge noted that the Board
of the University on several occasions had recommended the
regularisation of the daily-wage employees. However, the
sole impediment cited by the University was the absence of
consent from the State Government. The learned Single
Judge concluded that such consent was unnecessary
inasmuch as the financial burden was to be borne entirely by
the University. It was also noted that the Board possessed
the statutory authority to create non-teaching posts.
7. It was held that the action of the Government in
bringing 171 employees under the purview of the Welfare Act
amounted to deemed creation of sanctioned posts. The bar
– 76 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
on regularisation as laid down in The Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 was not attracted in the present case. The
writ petition was allowed, directing the University to
regularise the services of 128 daily-wage workers.
8. The contempt proceedings against the
appellants stem from the non-compliance of orders in W.P.
No. 27478/2023 directing the University to regularise the
respondents.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.711/2024 and
W.A.No.742/2024 that the appellants herein were the
petitioners in W.P.No.27469/2023 and 27478/2023,
respectively. They were persons who had already been
regularised in service by the University. It is submitted that
on 13.08.2009 in Annexure ‘F’ Order produced in
W.P.No.10632/2021 was passed, regularising the services of
K.P. Raju and seven others. However, the claim made by the
appellants for regularisation was rejected on 23.10.2008,
which led to filing of W.Ps.No.11642-78/2012. By Order
dated 20.04.2012, this Court directed the University to
consider the case of the appellants for regularisation without
reference to the impugned endorsement dated 23.10.2008.
When the said direction was not implemented, CCC
No.2694-2708/2013 was filed. During the pendency of that
proceeding, the University submitted a modified order of
regularisation by which the services of the appellants were
regularised. Recording the said order of regularisation, the
– 77 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
contempt proceedings were closed on 22.06.2014.
Thereafter, a review petition was filed before this Court,
which was also rejected on 02.02.2016.
10. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the
request of the 128 workers for regularisation was considered
by the University and the University recommended such
regularisation. However, the State Government passed an
order dated 18.02.2019 directing the University to keep the
resolution in abeyance and to reconsider the resolution. On
04.06.2019, the matter was reconsidered and the University
reiterated that the regularisation of 128 employees was to be
effected without casting any financial burden on the State
Government. Further communications occurred, however,
the State refused to grant permission for regularisation on
the ground that the benefit of the Welfare Act had been
extended to the employees and that there was no sanction
post to accommodate them. The 128 employees raised the
question of parity and contended that earlier batches of
identically situated employees had been regularised. As an
answer to the said contention, it is submitted that the orders
of regularisation of Sujatha Devi and 16 others were recalled.
11. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions advanced and found that the University had
taken a clear decision to regularise the services of the
employees and that no Government sanction for creation of
the posts is required. The orders withdrawing the
regularisation of Sujatha Devi and others was quashed and it
was declared that the regularisation orders shall stand
– 78 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
restored and all consequential monetary benefits shall be
paid to the said employees within two months from date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
12. In the appeals, the appellants contend that the
learned Single Judge disregarded the mandatory
requirements of Section 13(2)(XIII) of the University of
Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore Act, 2010 [‘University Act’
for short] which allows for the creation of teaching and
nonteaching posts only with prior Government approval.
They contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
ignores Section 3 of the Welfare Act, which only permits
daily-wage employees, once notified under the Act, to
continue on daily wages until the age of 60 and does not
authorise their regularisation.
13. Despite the Act, the learned Single Judge
assumed that sanctioned posts existed for the 128 dailywage
employees and treated their continuation under the Welfare
Act as equivalent to the creation of posts. It is submitted that
the Government never created or sanctioned any Group-D
posts for these workers and the finding of “deemed creation
of posts” is completely unwarranted and unjustified.
14. The appellants further submitted that the
respondent workers did not produce any appointment orders
showing that they were initially appointed against sanctioned
posts by a competent authority. Their engagement was
purely on a daily-wage basis. Hence, their case squarely falls
within the bar laid down in Umadevi‘s (supra), and reaffirmed
in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
– 79 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Ors., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 639, which prohibited
regularsation of workers who were never appointed to
sanctioned posts.
15. Shri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for
the Univeristy in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024
has placed the following decisions:-
• M.P.Housing Board & Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava,
reported in 2006(2) Supreme 354;
• Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr., reported in
2021 0 Supreme (SC) 596; and• Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 96;
16. Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing
for the University in W.A.No.629/2024 has placed the
following decisions:-
• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 17.01.2014 in
C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013;
• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 23.04.2015 in
C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013; and• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 21.08.2013 in
C.C.C.No.633-647/2013.
17. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior
counsel appearing for the private parties has brought to our
notice the orders passed by the University regularising the
services of identically placed employees. It is submitted that
since the employees were continuing without any break for
– 80 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
more than 30 years, the contention that the posts are not
sanctioned is only a hyper-technical plea raised to deny the
benefit of regularisation to the petitioners while identically
placed persons have already been granted all benefits of
regularisation. It is submitted that in several identical cases,
the benefit of regularisation had been extended to persons
who had completed 10 years of service after 01.07.1984 and
such directions of the Court had been given full effect to. It is
contended that since the writ petitioners were admittedly fully
qualified and had been carrying out the duties in the posts for
three decades and more, there is absolutely no bona fides in
the contention that the posts are not available to
accommodate them. It is further contended that then
question of the power of the University to create
administrative posts and to appoint persons to such posts
has also been specifically decided with reference to the
statutory provisions and no interference whatsoever is called
for.
18. It is further submitted that their regularisation is
justified based on long years of service as well as parity with
similarly placed employees already regularised by the State
and the University. Further, this position has been upheld
and confirmed by the Apex Court in Malathi Das’s case
(Supra). It is submitted that the University itself regularised
the respondent workers through an order dated 22.07.2024
pursuant to interim directions, and the State has regularised
numerous comparable employees in other departments.
– 81 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
19. It is contended that objections based on
financial constraints, sanctioned posts, cut-off dates are
misplaced, especially since the University possesses
statutory power to create posts and had already resolved to
regularise employees through its own funds. The withdrawal
of earlier regularisation orders by the University is alleged to
be improper. On these grounds, the respondents seek
confirmation of the regularisation order and dismissal of the
appeals.
20. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior
counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.705/2024
has placed the following decisions:-
• K.P.Raju & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, by order dated
31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-13857/2000;
• Smt. Premakala Shetty v. The Common Cadre
Committee & Anr., by order dated 12.11.1998 passed
in W.P.Nos.1338/1998 connected matters;
• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. T.B.Manjunath & Ors.,
reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2827;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna S., by
order dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019;
• Jivanlala v. Pravin Krishna & Ors., reported in (2016)
15 SCC 747;
• Dhananjoy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal &
Ors., reported in (2015) 17 SCC 504;
a
• Malathi Das & Ors. v. Suresh & Ors., reported in
(2014) 13 SCC 249;
• Sri. C.G.Jagadeesh v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.,
by order dated 23.04.2014 passed in
W.P.No.54284/2013 (S-KAT);
– 82 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
• The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R.Jagadeesh & Ors.,
by order dated 13.11.2013 passed in
W.A.Nos.45/2013 & 3477-3482/2013 (S-RES);
• Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported
in 2025 SCC online SC 1735;
• Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by
order dated 03.07.2023 passed in
SLP(C).No.7898/2020;
• Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by order
dated 13.03.2018 passed in C.A.Nos.2795-
2796/2018;
• Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by order
dated 19.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.44548/2016
(SRES);
• Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna &
Ors., by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A.
No.5586/2024;
• The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Mayanna Gowda M.
& Ors., by passed in SLP(C)No.42180/2024;
• Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K.Bhaghyalakshmi
and Ors., by order dated 29.10.2013 passed in
W.P.Nos.15716/2013;
• The Karnataka Casual & Daily v. The State of
Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 22.09.1998 passed
in W.P. Nos.12610/1993 & 28248-449/1998;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa
Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in
P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG);
• Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative
Tribunal & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290;
• Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported
in (2013) 14 SCC 65;
– 83 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
• Om Prakash Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal &
Ors., by order dated 19.05.2023 passed in
C.A.No.4210/2023;
• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Khatoonbi, by order
dated 27.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.107600/2017
(SKAT);
• The Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Smt. Vijayamma,
by order dated 30.10.2019 passed in
W.P.No.4282/2012 (S-RES);
• P. Junjappa v. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, by order dated 17.03.2025 passed in
W.P.No.6238/2020 (S-KSAT) connected matters;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. M.A.Biradar & Anr.,
by order dated 04.09.2024 passed in
W.P.No.100387/2023 (S-REG);
• Venkataraju V v. State of Karnataka, by order dated
10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022 (S-KSAT);
• Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna &
Ors., by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A.
No.5586/2024;
• Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences
University v. Someshwara and Ors., by order dated
16.10.2024 passed in C.A.No.5586/2024;
• The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Mahedevappa, by
passed in SLP (C) NO.4469/2022;
• Sri. Mahadevappa v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., by
order dated 17.11.2022 passed in CCC
No.100149/2021;
• The State of Karnataka v. A.K.Vasantha & Ors., by
order dated 13.01.2003 passed in W.P.No.793-
796/2003(S-KAT);
• Sri. Venkataraju V. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by
order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022
(S-KSAT);
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa
Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in
W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG);
– 84 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
• The Secretary to Govt. v. Dr. Parappa Shankarappa,
by order dated 30.09.1999 passed in
W.A.Nos.968/1998, 108/1986 & 1108-29/1999;
and
• The University of Agricultural Sciences v. Dr.
Digambarappa & Ors., by order dated 24.06.2022
passed in W.A.Nos.100263-100264/2022 (S-RES).
21. Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior
counsel appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.711/2024
and W.A.No.742/2024 would submit that in view of the fact
that the private respondents had been regularised in service
after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the
withdrawal of the regularisation after 5 years was completely
unjustified. It is further contended that the fact that their
services had been regularised, had been submitted before
this Court in a pending Contempt of Court Case and the
Contempt of Court Case had been closed recording the said
submission. Thereafter, a review petition was attempted
which was also rejected. It is submitted that in the above
circumstances, the order recalling the regularisation amounts
to a contempt in the face of the Court and cannot be
sustained under any circumstances.
22. Shri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior
counsel appearing for Workmen in W.A.No.711/2024 and
Complainants in C.C.C.No.646/2024, has placed the
following decisions:-
• K.P.Raju and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., by
order dated 31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-
13867/2000;
– 85 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
• Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported
in 2025 SCC online SC 1735;
• State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar
Association, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410;
• Malathi Das and Others v. Suresh and Others,
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. V. Revanna S., by
order dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019;
• Hanumantharayappa V. and Ors. v. Principal
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Karnataka and Another., reported in
2022 SCC online KAR 553;
• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi &
Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1;
• Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage
Employees Association & ors. v. State of Karnataka
• & ors., reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396;
• Smt. Sujatha Devi R., v. Bharathlal Meena & Ors., by
order dated 17.01.2014 passed in CCC.2694/2013;
and• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L.Kesari & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.
23. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the only question that requires examination in
the instant case is whether the judgment of the learned
Single Judge which directed the regularisation service of the
writ petitioners, who had admittedly been working for more
than 30 years in the University requires any interference.
24. The ground on which the request
for regularisation was rejected by the Government was that
the posts were not created after obtaining sanction from the
Government. The learned Single Judge, considering the
– 86 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
contentions advanced, as also the judgments of the Apex
Court, found that the very fact that the service of the
petitioners had been continued without break for more than
30 years would show that the posts are in existence and the
University cannot function without the services of the writ
petitioners.
25. Further, relying on Sections 7, 10, and 11 of the
University Act, it was found that the substantive provision of
the enactment confers power on the University to create the
posts and in the light of the proposal forwarded by the
University, which specifically stated that the entire
expenditure would be borne by the University, no sanction is
required for the creation of course or the regularisation of the
employees.
26. The learned Additional Advocate General
submits that the present arguments advanced by the
University are to the effect of that the Government is required
to fund the expenditure of regularisation. It is submitted that
the Government has no objection to the University
regularising the services of the writ petitioners provided the
Government is not mulcted with the financial liability of such
regularisation. However, it is contended that the finding of the
learned Single Judge that the grant of the benefits under the
Welfare Act amounts to “deemed sanctioning of posts” will
have unforeseen consequences in other cases where posts
do not exist and that the said finding should be vacated.
27. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we notice that the appeals are preferred only by the
– 87 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
University and no appeal is filed by the Government. It is
clearly stated by the learned Additional Advocate General
that the Government has no objection to the regularisation if
the University takes on the financial responsibility. We notice
that the University itself had repeatedly raised the request for
regularization of the petitioners and similarly situated
employees stating that their services are required and that
they are fully qualified to hold their respective posts. The
learned Single Judge clearly held that there is power in the
University to create administrative non-teaching posts which
are required for conduct of the University. This was the
contention of the University as well.
28. The writ petitioners are admittedly persons
employed in Group-C and Group-D posts and whose
services have been continued without a break for more than
30 years. The proposals forwarded by the University would
specifically show that they had intended to regularise the
services of the employees and to meet the expenses of such
regularisation from the funds available with University.
29. In Dharam Singh‘s case (supra), the Apex
Court observed that:-
“When public institutions depend, day after day,
on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity
demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned
posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and
dignity. The controversy before us is not about
rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether
years of ad hoc engagement, defended by shifting
excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to
deny the rights of those who have kept public
institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that the
public employment should be organised with fairness,
– 88 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
reasoned decision-making, and respect for the dignity of
work.”
It was further held that refusal to sanction posts
cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. It
was emphasized that State cannot balance budgets on those
who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.
In Jaggo’s case (supra), the Apex Court has held at
paragraphs No.20 and 27 as follows:-
“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who
have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair
and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks
inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a
scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent
judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it
was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to
deny regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed
the same duties as performed by the regular employee
over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have
been reproduced below:
“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the
facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under
which the appellants were employed and have continued
their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the
outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion was based on
a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent
circular, followed by a selection process involving written
tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from
– 89 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the appointments through back door entry as discussed in
the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal”
appointments underscoring the importance of considering
certain appointments even if were not made strictly in
accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had
followed the procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the
present case…”
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,
it is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden
of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and
uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are
meant to embody. This approach aligns with international
standards and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country.”
30. In the instant case, the fact that the writ
petitioners were working without break in non-teaching posts
in Group C and D under the University is not in dispute. The
learned Single Judge had considered the contentions
advanced and had examined the provisions of the University
Act and held that the substantial power was conferred to the
University to create non-teaching posts. This Court in The
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna S., by order dated
09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019, has clearly held
– 90 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
that grant of benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012 cannot be
a reason to deny regularization in deserving cases.
31. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would apply with
all force to the facts of these cases. It is clear that the
judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi‘s case
(supra) cannot be made an instrument of oppression to deny
regularisation after extracting service for decades on end.
Further, we are also in agreement with the proposition that
the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act cannot be a
ground to deny the substantial relief of regularisation.
32. We notice that the real import of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Uma Devi‘s case (supra), was that the
State and public authorities should not facilitate back door
entry into public employment by-passing the tenets of
fairness and equal opportunity in public employment and the
principles of merit and reservation. The Apex Court has
repeatedly held that the judgment of the Constitution Bench
cannot be used as a weapon of oppression by the very same
authorities who had initially made the daily wage
appointments without following due procedure, to deny equal
pay and service benefits to employees whose services have
been utilized, without break, for decades. The fact that
benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012 have been extended to
the employees can also not stand in the way of their
regularisation in view of the clear stand repeatedly taken by
the University.
– 91 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
33. However, we make it clear that the finding that
the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act amounts to grant
of Government Sanction for creation of posts cannot be a
sound legal proposition. The said observation is vacated. We
hold that the hyper-technical contentions that the posts have
not been created with Government Sanction cannot stand in
the way of regularization of the writ petitioners services.
34. In the above circumstances, the appeals fail,
the same are accordingly dismissed. The directions of the
learned Single Judge shall be complied with, within a period
of three months.
CCC No. 646/2024 is accordingly closed with liberty to
the complainants to reopen the CCC, if the directions are not
fully complied with, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of in all the cases.”
16. In the instant case, it is necessary to state that
subsequent to the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner
being dismissed by the Apex Court as stated supra, the
respondent-University addressed a communication dated
21.05.2025 to the respondent-State bringing to the notice of the
respondent-State that in its Resolution of 406th meeting and the
legal opinion obtained by the University, it was resolved to
– 92 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
reappoint the petitioner on humanitarian grounds as an Assistant
Professor considering her service of 11.5 years in the post which is
already sanctioned by the Government and in the light of
judgments of the Apex Court, this court and other High Courts.
The aforesaid communication dated 21.05.2025 at Annexure-R1
reads as under:
“PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀPÀbÉÃj, UÁA¢ü PÀȶ «eÁÕ£À PÉÃAzÀæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 065
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
BANGALORE
Office of the Registrar, Gandhi Krishi Vignana Kendra, BengaluruNo.AO/RT/Ramya H.N./2025-26 Date: 21-05-2025
To,
The Secretary to Government,
Agriculture Department,
Karnataka Government Secretariate,
M.S. Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
[reg. Post Ack. Due]
Sir/Madam,
Sub: Case of Mrs. Ramya H.N., for the post of
Assistant Professor of Agricultural Engineering
…. Reg.
Ref: 1. This Office Letter No.AO/RT/RHN/Court
Case/2024-25 dated: 02-04-2024.
2. Your Letter No.AGRI/15/AUB/2024
dated: 13-09-2024.
3. Minutes of 405th Meeting of the Board of
Management, UAS, Bangalore held on
30-01-2025
4. Legal Opinion dated: 17-04-2025 of the
UAS, Legal Counsel.
– 93 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
5. Minutes of 406th Meeting of the Board of
Management, UAS, Bangalore held on
23-04-2025.
><><><><
With reference to the subject cited above, I write to
sought permission of the Government on the following
matter.
University had sought permission and Approval of the
Government of accommodating Mrs. Ramya H.N., purely on
humanitarian ground to the existing vacant post of Assistant
Professor of Agricultural Engineering through letter dated 02-
04-2024 (Ref: 01 – Copy enclosed)
In response to University letter dated: 02-04-2024, the
Government through its letter dated 13.09.2024 has informed
the University as below (Ref: 02 – Copy enclosed)
“ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ vÀªÀÄä PÀqÉ
UÀªÀÄ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸É¼ÉAiÀįÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æêÀÄw gÀªÀiÁå ºÉZï.J£ï. gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄvÉ Cr ªÀÄAdÆgÁV SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ (PÀȶ
EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï) ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉëĸÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À
PÀ°à¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ²æêÀÄw gÀªÀiÁå ºÉZï.J£ï.gÀªÀjUÉ
ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄvÉ Cr ªÀÄAdÆgÁV SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ (PÀȶ EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï)
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉëĸÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä
¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ
¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝãÉ.”
A detailed item was placed enclosing the opinion
furnished by the Government of Karnataka to the 404th
Meeting of the Board of Management UAS, Bangalore for
taking a decision. The Board of Management in its 405th
Meeting held on 30-01-2025, after deliberations decided as
follows (Ref: 03 Copy enclosed):
Item No.08: The case of Mrs. Ramya H.N. for the post of
Assistant Professor of Agril Engineering.
– 94 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
The Board took the cognizance of the Government letter
regarding Mrs. Ramya H.N. to place her in suitable vacant
position with same subject and category, the Government
has declined stating non-existence of suitable provisions of
under humanitarian grounds.
During the deliberations, the Board noted that, the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala has delivered verdict in W.P.No.229 of
2017 related to Sivanandan C.T. and Others (petitioners) Vs
High Court of Kerala and others (respondents) ordered that
“Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago
cannot be unseated.”
Further, in a Civil Appeal Nos 6233-6234 of 2023 (arising out
of SLP (C) Nos 15522-15523 of 2021), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court upheld the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala’s decision and
given Verdict stating that, “Candidates who have been
selected nearly six years cannot be unseated. They were all
qualified and have been serving the district judiciary of the
state. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to
public interest.”
Under these circumstances, the Board of Management
decided to seek Legal Opinion;
“Whether Mrs. Ramany, H.N., can be placed against suitable
vacant position at College of Agricultural Engineering,
ensuring same subject and category, on the similar lines of
Hon’ble Court verdict in the said W.P.No.229 of 2017 and
Civil Appeal 6233-6234 of 2023 and to present it to before
the Board to take a final decision.”
– 95 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
Pursuant to the decision of the 405th meeting of the
Board of Management, University has once again sought
legal opinion from the UAS Legal Counsel in the matter. The
Advocate has furnished his considered opinion on 17-04-
2025 (Ref: 04 copy enclosed) which is extracted as follows:
“I am of the considered opinion that, in view of the aforesaid
judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
in the matter of Sri. H.C. Puttaswamy and Others V/s the
Hon’ble Chief Justice High Court of Karnataka reported in
1991 SUPP (2) SCC Page 421 and various others
Judgments, the University is required to consider her case
for appointment on humanitarian grounds either by creating
a supernumerary post or against a clear sanctioned post by
placing the matter before the Board of Management to take a
decision & proceed further in the matter on obtaining the
approval of the Govt.”
An item was placed to the 406th Meeting of Board of
Management of UAS Bangalore for taking a decision
enclosing the Legal Opinion dated 17-04-2025. The board of
Management in its 406th Meeting hed on 23-04-2025, after
deliberations decided as follows (Ref: 65 copy enclosed)
The Board took note of various judgments of High
Court of Kerala vide w.p.No. 229 of 2017 related C T
Shivanandan and others Vs High Court of Kerala and other
respondents ordered that “Candidates who have been
selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. Further,
in a Civil appeal Nos 6233-6234 of 2023 arising out of SLP ©
Nos15522-15523 of 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
– 96 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
upheld the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and
given a verdict stating that “Candidates who have been
selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. Unseating
them at this stage would be contrary to public interest since
they have gained experience at judicial officers in the service
of the State of Kerala. Unseating them would, besides being
harsh result in a situation where the higher judiciary would
lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have
gained experience over the last six years in the post of
District Judge.” To induct the petitioners would be to bring in
new candidates in preference to those who are holding
judicial office for a length of time. To deprive the state
…….its citizens of the benefits of these experienced judicial
officers at a senor position would not be in public interest.”
Further, there are several cases of challenging the
appointments in various High Courts and also in Hon’ble
supreme court. To quote a few.
Sri H. C. Puttaswamy and others Vs Hon’ble Chief justice of
High Court of Karnataka reported in 1991 supp (2) supreme
court cases 421 held that “one could only imagine their
untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the
midstream. Indeed it would be an act of cruelty at this stage
to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce for fresh
selection. The precedents apart, the circumstances of this
case justify an humanitarian approach and indeed, the
appellants seem to deserve justice ruled by mercy We take
note of the fact that the writ petitioners also would be
appointed in the High court as stated by learned Advocate
General of the State.”
– 97 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
With due consideration to the judgments of Hon’ble High
courts and Hon’ble Supreme court, the case of the
reappointment of Mrs H.N. Ramya shall be considered
positively since she has put in an unblemished service of
11.5 years at College of Agriculture. Hassan as Asst.
Professor. As per judgments not to unseat any person who
has served continuously for six years, it becomes inhuman to
terminate any person from service who has put in six years
service. In view of the above, Mrs. H N Ramya shall be
reappointed as Asst. professor of Agricultural Engineering at
College of Agriculture considering her service of 11.5 years
and in the light of Hon’ble court judgments.
The Board deliberated the item at length and considered
various issues pertaining to the subject and decided to
appoint Mrs. H.N. Ramya as Asst. Professor of Agricultural
Engineering at College of Agriculture, Hassan after seeking
the opinion of the Government in the light of judgments cited
above.”
In view of the decision of the Board of Management. I
have been directed to seek the advice to the Government to
reappoint Mrs. Ramya. H.N., as requested by the Board of
Management for existing vacant post of Assistant Professor
of Agricultural Engineering in UAS, Bangalore.
Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,
Registrar,
University of Agricultural Sciences,
G.K.V.K., Bengaluru – 560 065″
– 98 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
17. As stated supra, since the petitioner approached this
Court, inter alia contending that the State Government had not
taken any steps pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the
petitioner approached this court by way of the present petition inter
alia, contending that the aforesaid communication had not been
acted upon by the State Government. However, subsequently as
can be seen from Annexure R2 dated 03.09.2025, the State
Government proceeded to reject the request of the University as
hereunder:
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
“¸ÀASÉå: AGRI 15 AUB 2024. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
§ºÀĪÀĺÀr PÀlÖqÀ,
qÁ.©.Dgï.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «Ã¢,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-09-2025.
EªÀjAzÀ:
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ,EªÀjUÉ:
PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ,
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ,
f.PÉ.«.PÉ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æêÀÄw gÀªÀiÁå ºÉZï.J£ï. EªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀÈ««, fPÉ«PÉ AiÀÄ°è
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ
PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: AO/RT/Ramya H.N./2025-26,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.05.2025.
– 99 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025HC-KAR
*****
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ. ²æêÀÄw gÀªÀiÁå ºÉZï.J£ï., EªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀȶ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À PÀȶ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀgÄÀ (PÀȶ
EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï) ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀiªÀiÁªÀ½AiÀÄ°è “ªÀiÁ£À«ÃAiÀÄ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÄ£Àgï
£ÉêÀÄPÁw” UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «zsÁ£ÀUÀ½®è. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À®Æè ¸ÀºÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¨ÁzsÀåvÉAiÀiÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ²æêÀÄw gÀªÀiÁå ºÉZï.J£ï.
EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï
£ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀzÀj £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥À J¸ÀVzÀ
C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ DzÀåvÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀAvÉ
ºÁUÀÆ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÄÀ zÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ
¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÝÉ Ã£É.
F ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄÄ n¥Ààt ¸ÀASÉå: DE 555 ªÉZÀÑ-
4/2025, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26-08-2025gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ£éÀAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ.
vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ,
(eÉÆÃ£ï ¥ÀæPÁ±ï gÉÆÃræUÀ¸ï)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀȶ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÉUÀ¼ÀÄ)”
18. A perusal of the said communication will clearly
indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic, unreasoned and non-
speaking and except stating that the petitioner was unsuccessful in
the earlier round of litigation, no other reasons are assigned by the
– 100 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent-State so as to reject the request made by the
respondent-University. It is also pertinent to note that the various
judgments referred to in the resolution of the respondent-University
i.e., Board of Management of the respondent-University, the
specific assertion made by the respondent-University that it intends
to reappoint the petitioner on humanitarian grounds taking into
account the fact that there was an existing vacant post and that the
petitioner had put in 11.5 years of unblemished service have not
even been adverted to or considered nor appreciated by the State
Government while issuing the said communication at Annexure R2,
which undisputedly forms the basis for the University to issue the
impugned endorsement at Annexure-J, refusing to accede to the
request made by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that the impugned endorsement at
Annexure-J as well as the communication at Annexure-R2 deserve
to be quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent-
State for reconsideration afresh by issuing certain directions.
19. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner that it is the University alone which is
competent and authorised to appoint persons such as petitioner to
– 101 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
the undisputed sanctioned post and the contention urged on behalf
of the learned AGA that the said aspect with regard to
issue/question as to whether the University or State, which has
power or competency to appoint the petitioner are concerned, the
said aspects would have to be considered by the State
Government bearing in mind the provisions contained in Sections
7(10) ad 13(xiii) of the said Act of 2009 while passing appropriate
orders as stated supra.
20. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned letter / endorsement at Annexure-J
dated 31.10.2025 issued by the respondent – University and the
impugned letter/communication at Annexure-R2 dated 03.09.2025
issued by the respondent-State are hereby quashed.
iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent-State for
reconsideration of the Communication at Annexure-C dated
21.05.2025 submitted by the respondent-University, afresh bearing
in mind the judgments/orders in the cases of the Secretary to
Govt. Vs. Dr. Parappa Shankarappa and others –
– 102 –
NC: 2026:KHC:20250
WP No. 26495 of 2025
HC-KAR
W.A.No.968/1998 & W.A.No.1083-86 and W.A.No.1108-29/99
dated 30.09.1999 (Annexure-G), the University of Agricultural
Sciences Vs. Sri. Dr. Digambarappa and othrs –
W.A.No.100263/2022 C/w. W.A.No.100264/2022 – dated
24.06.2022 (Dharwad Bench) (Annexure-H), State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Preetam Singh and others – (2014) 15 SCC 774,
the Registrar and others Vs. Sri. Chikkanna and others –
W.A.No.705/2024 & Con. Matters – dated 16.12.2025, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Immediately upon taking the decision in this regard,
the respondent-State shall communicate the same to the
respondent Nos.2 and 3-University, who shall communicate the
same to the petitioner and take further steps in this regard within a
period of four weeks thereafter.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32
