JUDGMENT Hemant Chandangoudar, J. - This writ petition is filed challenging the resolution No.1(b) passed by the Executive Council Meeting of the Visvesvaraya Technological University dated 19.3.2018 (Annexure-A) and also for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for declaration of probationary period and also to declare that the probationary period of the petitioners for having completed successfully on completion of two years of service in their respective posts. 2. Petitioners are all Masters Degree holders in their respective field. Pursuant to the notifications issued by the respondent University in the year 2013 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various teaching posts in the respondent University, the petitioners submitted applications for considering them for appointment. Petitioners were appointed to various teaching posts considering their merit and experiences. 3. The appointment orders were issued to the petitioners at Annexure-E series and one of the terms and conditions imposed was that the petitioners will be on probation for a period of two years, and if the work during the period of probation is found satisfactory, they will be taken on permanent basis according to the Rules and Service Conditions of the University. The probationary period may be extended by the University, depending upon their performance during probationary period. 4. Complaints were received from various persons regarding alleged irregularity and mismanagement of the University. The State Government appointed one man committee as a fact finding committee to inquire into the alleged irregularity. 5. Allegations of irregularity and mismanagement of the University was probed by one man fact finding committee and a report was submitted with the Government (Annexure- H). The probationary period of the petitioners was extended by the respondent- University and petitioners were informed that action would be taken for declaration of probationary period after receipt of report of one man fact finding committee ( Annexure-J). 6. Based on the report submitted by the one man fact finding committee, the 2nd respondent constituted a committee known as the Recruitment Verification Committee to inquire into the alleged illegalities in respect of appointment of teaching staff during the period of 2013-14. The committee submitted its report and the petitioners state that they have not been indicted in the said report . 7. The committee submitted its report and the petitioners state that they have not been indicted in the said report . 7. After the Recruitment Verification Committee submitted its report, the 2nd respondent at its meeting passed a resolution 19.03.2018 which reads thus: No.1(a) "The Executive Council unanimously resolved to authorize the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to immediately initiate legal action against the then University Officers, Dean and others of the University involved in alleged irregularities, as per the recommendations of the Hon'ble Justice Ashok B Hinchigeri, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka based on the Report submitted by the Justice Keshavanarayana, Former Judge of High Court of Karnataka (including internal and External Audit Reports)." No.1(b) "The Executive Council unanimously resolved to authorize the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to initiate action against the following category of candidates: 1) Candidates appointed without requisite qualification and experience for the post. (2) Ineligible candidates. (3) All those who have been appointed to nonsanctioned post. (4) All those who have claimed wrong category. (5) Candidates claiming eligibility by submitting fake certificates etc. The Executive Council also authorized the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to defer the declaration of probationary period of all the candidates until further orders. The Executive Council further authorized the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor to constitute an Inquiry Committee headed by the legal expert as the Head of the Committee not less than the rank of Retd. District Judge to submit the recommendations for further action against the candidates listed 1 to 5 category mentioned above." 8. The petitioners who have been working for more than five years submitted representations with the University requesting for declaration of their probationary period (Annexures- M series & N). Petitioners' grievance is that the resolution No.1(b) passed by the 2nd respondent so far as it relates to authorizing the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor to defer the declaration of probationary period of all the candidates until further orders and non consideration of their claims is contrary to Rule 4 of Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). Hence, these writ petitions. 9. Petitioners have also filed an application in I.A.No.2/2019 to extend the benefit of regular annual increment from the date of their appointments. 10. Hence, these writ petitions. 9. Petitioners have also filed an application in I.A.No.2/2019 to extend the benefit of regular annual increment from the date of their appointments. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 4 of the Rules mandates that the probationary period cannot be postponed beyond the period exceeding half the prescribed period of probation and such extension shall be made only by way of reasoned order. Therefore, he submits that the action of the respondent University in not declaring probation of the petitioners is illegal and bad in law. 11. He also submits that the petitioners have cleared all the departmental examinations and that there is no inquiry initiated or pending against the petitioners till date. It is also submitted that there are no allegation/s made against the petitioners and they are also not indicted and they have not been issued with any show cause notices/notices to inquire into the alleged irregularities or illegalities in their appointments . 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners have not been extended the benefit of annual increment since their appointment for which they are entitled to. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent - University submits that power vests with the 2nd respondent to postpone the declaration of probationary period of the petitioners under the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), if the appointing Authority finds that the candidates have not met the eligibility conditions. He also has referred to the communication dated 27.6.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education Department, to the respondent University wherein it is opined that the proposal sent for declaration of probationary period of the teaching staff appointed in the year 2013-14 cannot be considered since the said appointments are the subject matter of the inquiry report submitted by Justice Keshavanarayan regarding illegal appointments made by the respondent- University in respect of teaching staff during 2013-14. Hence, he justifies the action of the University deferring the declaration of probationary period . 14. Learned counsel for respondent University also submits that the petitioners No.3, 5 and 10 were not appointed in sanctioned posts and as such they are not entitled for declaration of their probationary period. However, he concedes the fact that no enquiry is initiated or pending against the petitioners till date. 15. 14. Learned counsel for respondent University also submits that the petitioners No.3, 5 and 10 were not appointed in sanctioned posts and as such they are not entitled for declaration of their probationary period. However, he concedes the fact that no enquiry is initiated or pending against the petitioners till date. 15. I have analyzed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the writ petition papers. 16. The respondent University has adopted the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977 in the matter of declaration of probationary period of the teaching staff of the respondent University and the same is not in dispute. Rule 4 of the said Rules reads thus: 4. Extension or reduction of period of probation:- 1) The period of probation may, for reason to be recorded, in writing be extended:- (i) by the Governor or the Government by such period as he or it deems fit; (ii) by any other appointing authority by such period not exceeding half the prescribed period of probation; Provided that if within the prescribed or extended period of probation, a probationer has appeared for any examinations or tests required to be passed during the period of probation and the results thereof are not known before the expiry of such period, then the period of probation shall be deemed to have been extended until the publication of the results of such examinations or tests or of the first of them in which he fails to pass. (2) The Government may, by order, reduce the period of probation of a probationer by such period not exceeding the period during which he discharged the duties of the post to which he was appointed or of a post the duties of which are in the opinion of the Government, similar and equivalent to those of such post." 17. A reading of the said Rule would indicate that the period of probation may for reason to be recorded in writing be extended by the University by such period not exceeding half prescribed period of probation. It is only the Governor or the Government who may extend probationary period of probation by such period as he or it deems fit. In respect of any other Authority, extension of period of probation by any other appointing Authority, the same shall not exceed half the prescribed period of probation. It is only the Governor or the Government who may extend probationary period of probation by such period as he or it deems fit. In respect of any other Authority, extension of period of probation by any other appointing Authority, the same shall not exceed half the prescribed period of probation. Petitioners have been appointed by respondent No.1 and not the Governor or Government. Thus, the maximum period of probationary under the service Rules is three years and extension beyond the said period is not permissible. 18. In the present case, petitioners were appointed on the condition that they will be on probation for a period of two years and extension of probationary period shall be done by reason to be recorded in writing. However, the probation of the petitioners have been extended until further orders pursuant to the impugned resolution passed by the 2nd respondent. Extension of probationary period beyond the period not exceeding half the period of probation is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules. Hence, submission of learned counsel for University that the probationary period can be extended until further orders as per the statutes of the University cannot be accepted. 19. Petitioners cannot be deprived of their claims for declaration of their probationary period only because an inquiry report is submitted that there are irregularities or illegalities in the appointment of teaching staff in the year 2013. Petitioners are entitled for considering their case of declaration of probationary period in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules and the same cannot be denied on the allegation that the appointments were illegal and irregular. It is a fact that respondent University has not taken any action for cancellation of appointments of the petitioners till date. 20. Petitioners are also entitled for extension of annual increment in accordance with Rules from the date of their initial appointment and the same cannot be deprived on the ground that the probationary period of the petitioners are not yet declared and that enquiry report is submitted that there are illegalities / irregularities in the appointment of teaching staff in 2013 in the absence of any action being initiated against the petitioners . 21. 21. For the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the deferring of declaration of probationary period of the petitioners until further orders is contrary to Rule 4 of the Rules and the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their case for declaration of probationary period in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for consideration of their claim for extension of annual increment in accordance with law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) Impugned Resolution No.1(b) dated 19.3.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A, so far it relates to, authorizing the Vice-Chancellor to defer the declaration of probationary period of the petitioners until further orders is quashed . iii) Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for declaration of probationary period in terms of Rule 4 of Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977 and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of annual increment from the date of their appointment in accordance with the Rules within a period of three months. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the pespondent - University from taking any action against the petitioners with regard to the alleged illegalities / irregularities in their appointments in accordance with law . In view of disposal of this writ petition, pending interlocutory applications stands consigned to record room.