., J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions arises an interesting question with regard to the participation of a lecturer in the general elections to the loksabha. Facts in W. P. No. 22214 of 2000. Petitioner was working as a senior grade lecturer in economics in mysore university. On the advent of the first respondent under the Karnataka state open university act, 1992 and after formation of the first respondent, the petitioner was appointed as selection grade lecturer (reader) in 1996. While working as such the petitioner was appointed as deputy registrar (evaluation) on the administrative side in the year 1998. The petitioner is rendering honest and sincere service for several years. The petitioner is issued with a show-cause notice on 1-6-2000, Annexure-a alleging that the petitioner has contested the loksabha elections and he has supported a candidate of janata dal (s), smt. Nagamma in taluk panchayat elections. The petitioner sought for details in the matter in terms of Annexure-b. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to him in terms of Annexure-c. Annexure-d is a copy of statute framed by the first respondent. The petitioner in this petition is seeking for quashing the showcause notice, Annexure-a, endorsement, Annexure-b in addition to a direction directing the respondents not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. ( 2 ) THIS court issued notice. The respondents have entered appearance through counsel. They have filed a detailed objections. They say that the petitioner deserves disciplinary proceedings. Facts in W. P. No. 23574 of 2000. In this petition, the petitioner is questioning Annexure-h, Article of charges, Annexure-j, suspension Order and is also seeking a direction not to proceed in the matter. this is nothing but a continuation of the earlier proceedings. The facts are same/similar. In this petition, the petitioner has filed Annexure-e stating that the statute No. Ix came into force only on 28-1-2000. Annexures-f and g are nothing but a request to stop the proceedings. Annexure-h is Article of charges. Notices were issued. The respondents have entered appearance. They justify their stand. They further state that the proceedings have been completed and the report has been submitted by the enquiry officer. ( 3 ) HEARD the counsels. ( 4 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel invites my attention to the provisions in the Karnataka state open university act. He invites my attention to Section 23 of the act. They justify their stand. They further state that the proceedings have been completed and the report has been submitted by the enquiry officer. ( 3 ) HEARD the counsels. ( 4 ) SRI Ravivarma Kumar, learned counsel invites my attention to the provisions in the Karnataka state open university act. He invites my attention to Section 23 of the act. He refers to ii schedule and in particular clause 18. He states that a reading of this would show that the petitioner is fully justified in his submissions. Counsel also says that when the charge-sheet was issued, the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of Karnataka civil service rules. ( 5 ) PER contra, the counsel for the university contends that the petitioner was issued with the notice in terms of the Karnataka civil service conduct rules. He states that even otherwise executive instructions would govern the matter. After hearing the counsels, let me see as to whether the petitioner is justified in his contentions. ( 6 ) SECTION 23 of the Act deals with statutes how made. The said Section reads as under:"23. Statutes how made. (1) the first statutes are those set out in the second schedule. (2) the board of management may from time to time, make new or additional statutes or may amend or repeal the statutes referred to in sub-section (1): provided that the board of management shall not make, amend or repeal any statutes affecting status, powers or constitution of any authority of the university until such authority has been given a reasonable opportunity to express its opinion in writing on the proposed changes and any opinion so expressed has been considered by the board of management. (3) every new statute or addition to the statutes or any amendment or repeal thereof shall require the approval of the chancellor, who may assent thereto or withhold assent or remit to the board of management for reconsideration in the light of the observation, if any, made by him. (4) a new statute or a statute amending or repealing an existing statute shall not be valid unless it has been assented to by the chancellor. (5) notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the chancellor may make new or additional statutes or amend or repeal the statutes referred to in sub-section (1) during the period of three years immediately after the commencement of this act. (5) notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the chancellor may make new or additional statutes or amend or repeal the statutes referred to in sub-section (1) during the period of three years immediately after the commencement of this act. (6) notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-section, the chancellor may direct the university to make provisions in the statutes in respect of any matter specified by him and if the board of management is unable to implement such a direction within sixty days of its receipt the chancellor may, after considering the reasons, if any, communicated by the board of management for its inability to comply with such direction, make or amend the statutes suitably". ( 7 ) CLAUSE 4 of Section 23 categorically states that a new statute or a statute amending or repealing an existing statute shall not be valid unless it has been assented to by the chancellor. ( 8 ) SECOND schedule is seen in the Act itself. Clause 18 reads as under:"18. Terms and conditions of service and code of conduct of other employees of the university. All the employees of the university other than the teachers and other academic staff of the university shall in the absence of any contract to the contrary be governed by the terms and conditions of service and code of conduct as are specified in the statutes and the ordinances". ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, the petitioner is admittedly proceeded under the Karnataka civil service rules. The same has been introduced in terms of Annexure-r3. Annexure-r3 is issued by the vice-chancellor. It is dated 29-1-2000. A combined reading of Section 23, second schedule and clause 18 would show that any statute or a new statute shall not be valid unless it has been assented to by the chancellor. There is no assenting of chancellor to Annexure-r3. In the circumstances and in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka state open university act, it is not possible for this court to hold that the respondents can charge the petitioner in terms of the Karnataka civil service rules solely on the basis of Annexure-r3. It is not possible for this court to provide a statutory protection to Annexure-r3 in the matter of applicability of the Karnataka civil service rules in the absence of any assent by the chancellor. It is not possible for this court to provide a statutory protection to Annexure-r3 in the matter of applicability of the Karnataka civil service rules in the absence of any assent by the chancellor. Moreover, in terms of second schedule read with clause 18, there was no statute as such framed at the time when the petitioner was issued with the charge-sheet. It is seen that the petitioner had participated the loksabha elections held in the year 1999. In the circumstances, the petitioner is fully justified in contending that the Karnataka civil service rules cannot form the foundation for disciplinary proceedings. ( 10 ) EVEN the enquiry officer has noticed that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that the petitioner being teacher has a right to contest the election. He has also suggested not to proceed further. Taking an overall view of the matter including the inapplicability of the Karnataka civil service rules and the report, this court has no option, but to set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings including the showcause notice, Article of charges and the subsequent report in the light of the inapplicability of the Karnataka civil service rules which was the foundation for this case on hand. The arguments of executive instructions cannot be considered in the light of specific provision in terms of Section 23 of the act. ( 11 ) IN the result, these petitions are allowed. The impugned notice, the endorsement and all further proceedings are set aside. ( 12 ) A direction is issued to the respondents not to proceed further in the matter on the basis of the impugned notice. ( 13 ) PARTIES to bear their costs --- *** --- .