ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. P.S. Rajagopal along with Sri. Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior counsel along with Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No. 3, learned Senior counsel Sri. Madhusudhan R. Naik along with Sri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri. M.V. Ramesh Jois, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1. 2. Though the petition is listed for consideration of I.A. No. 1/2020 praying for vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 26.02.2020, the matter is taken up for disposal in view of the short point on which the writ petition can be disposed of. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as under:- The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the Notification produced and marked as Annexure-J to the writ petition bearing No. ED-22-UBV/2020 dated 20.02.2020, whereby respondent No. 3, who is officiating as Associate Professor in the Department of Studies and Research in Chemistry, Government Science College (Autonomous), Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, has been nominated and appointed as the Registrar (Evaluation) in respondent No. 2-University. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would take this Court to the provisions of Sections 2 (3) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) which reads as under:- “(3) Department, Department of Studies, Post Graduate Department and Post Graduate Department of Studies means the Department, Department of Studies, Post Graduate Department and Post Graduate Department of studies in the University run and maintained by the University.” 5. He would further take this Court through the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, which reads as under:- “18. The Registrar (Evaluation) - (1) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time Officer of the University. The State Government may appoint an Officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service, not below the rank of Group-A senior scale or a senior member of Faculty of any University to be the Registrar (Evaluation) of a University: Provided that where no such person is available then the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be appointed by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Syndicate from out of a penal of not less than three persons recommended by the Vice Chancellor. If none of the persons in the penal is approved by the Syndicate within the time prescribed by the statutes, the Chancellor may, in consultation with the Vice Chancellor appoint such other person as he deems fit to be the Registrar (Evaluation). The terms and conditions of service and emoluments of the Registrar (Evaluation) so appointed shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor.” 6. He would further invite the attention of the Court to provisions of Section 34 of the Act and in particular, he would take the Court through sub-section (9) of Section 34 of the Act, which reads as under:- “(9) Each Faculty shall consist of the following members, namely:- (i) the Dean of the Faculty. (ii) the Registrar (Evaluation). (iii) the Chairman of the Department of Studies in the Faculty. (iv) all the Professors and in the absence of Professors, Readers in the Faculty from each Department in the Faculty. (v) one Reader and One Lecturer in each Department of Studies nominated by the Vice-Chancellor by rotation in the order of Seniority for a term of two years. (vi) five Teachers of colleges and two Experts from other Universities in the State nominated by the Vice- Chancellor for a term of two years. (vii) such other persons as may be specified by the Statutes.” 7. Learned Senior counsel Sri. P.S. Rajagopal appearing for the petitioner would contend that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, the persons who are eligible to be appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) in the University could be either from the Karnataka Administrative Service or senior member of faculty of any University. He would contend that admittedly, respondent No. 3 is not a member of any faculty of the University as defined under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act and that he is an Associate Professor discharging duties in the Government Science College and in the light of the said provision, respondent No. 3 is not qualified to be appointed as Registrar (Evaluation). He would further refer to the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 34 of the Act to demonstrate the details of members, who constitute the faculty and he would contend that by no stretch of imagination can respondent No. 3 be considered to be a member of the faculty of the University, which is a pre-requisite qualification to be appointed as Registrar (Evaluation) of a University. 8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that the petitioner is a senior member of the faculty of the Department of Studies and Research in Chemistry, Government Science College (Autonomous) and hence, he would strive to support and sustain the impugned proceedings. 9. From the above, the short point that falls for consideration is whether respondent No. 3 possesses the pre-requisites as stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, enabling his appointment by the respondent-State. There is no dispute with regard to the facts stated above. Respondent No. 3 is admittedly an Associate Professor in the Department of Studies and Research in Chemistry, Government Science College (Autonomous), Bengaluru. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act clearly mandates that the Registrar (Evaluation) shall be a whole time Officer of the University and the persons, who are qualified to be appointed to the said post are not merely members of Karnataka Administrative Service but an officer of the Karnataka Administrative Service in the senior scale and similarly a senior member of the faculty of an University. There is no ambiguity in the provisions. There are two classes of people, who primarily qualify to be appointed as Registrar (Evaluation). Only in the event of either of the members not being available, proviso provides for the other classes of people, who could be appointed. 10. In the instant case, it is not the case of Government that two classes of people are not available. That being the admitted factual position, respondent-State could not have traversed beyond the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act and seek to appoint a person, who otherwise is not qualified under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is not a member of the faculty of any University as defined under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is not a member of the faculty of any University as defined under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the writ petition requires to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The notification impugned vide Annexure-J bearing No. ED-22-UBV/2020 dated 20.02.2020 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. In view of the above order, I.A. No. 1/2020 stands disposed of.