MALAKAPPA Vs. ANNAPURNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition raises a short, but important question regarding the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a University under the provisions of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity). The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 18.10.2010 issued by the first respondent-Chancellor produced at Annexure-E and has sought consequential directions. The petitioner is stated to be an eminent academician having obtained M.Sc., in Bio-Chemistry in first class and Ph.D., from Simon Fraser University, Canada. He is said to be the senior most professor in the 4th respondent-Karnataka University (hereinafter, referred to as 'the University') established u/s 3 of the Act. The achievements of the petitioner are stated at Annexure-A. He is, presently, the Registrar of the respondent-University.

(2.) The Vice-Chancellor of the University retired on the forenoon of 25.10.2010 on expiry of his term. As such, steps were initiated for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor in terms of Sec. 14 of the Act. Accordingly, the State Government constituted a Search Committee comprising of four persons, consisting of a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of University Grants Commission (UGC), a nominee of State Government and the nominee of the syndicate of the University. The nominee of the State Government was appointed as a Chairman of the committee. The Search Committee met on 28.9.2010 and after due deliberations recommended a panel of three names in alphabetical order to the State Government as per Annexure-B dated 11.10.2010. The names are as follows:

(3.) After considering the said names recommended by the Search Committee, the State Government thought that the petitioner was the most competent and suitable person and made a recommendation to the Chancellor of the University-the first respondent herein, indicating that out of the three names suggested by the Search Committee, the petitioner was to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide Annexure-C. The first respondent-Chancellor, however, did not accept the said name suggested by the State Government and instead exercised power under sub-section (4) of Sec. 14 of the Act and appointed the third respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the University and accordingly, notification dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure-E) was issued which is assailed by the petitioner herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that there has been non-compliance of sub-section (4) of Sec. 14 of the Act inasmuch as the Chancellor can appoint a Vice-Chancellor only with the concurrence of the State Government and in the instant case, there being no such concurrence, the appointment of the third respondent is vitiated. In this context, reliance is placed on the communication dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure-F) addressed by the Minister for Higher Education to the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, who is the ex officio Chancellor of the respondent-University. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the third respondent, the petitioner has assailed the same by raising various contentions.