Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 367 (KAR)

N. RAMACHANDRA SWAMY v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

2021-03-04

S.G.PANDIT

body2021
JUDGMENT : S.G. Pandit, J. 1. The petitioner who was an aspirant to the office of Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Notification bearing No. GS 21 MUM 2016 dtd. 16/11/2018 issued by the first respondent, by which, the 4th respondent is appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Ganesh Gowda for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.M.C.Nagashree for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri.Vinayaka B., for respondent No. 4. 3. The petitioner is a Ph.D Holder from the elite CFTRI, Mysore and who has also completed Post Doctoral Research from University of Athens, Atlanta, USA and also from Rosewell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalor, New York, U.S.A. He was working as Professor in Biochemistry at Bangalore University. In pursuance of the Notification dtd. 3/10/2018 Annexure-A, the petitioner applied for the post of Vice- Chancellor, Mysore University. The Search Committee appointed by the Government short listed three persons i.e., Prof.N.S.Ashok Kumar, Prof.C.P.Siddasharma and Prof.R.K.Somashekar. Thereafter, the Government recommended the name of Prof.C.P.Siddasharma to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University. The Chancellor differed with the recommendation of the State Government and had returned the file to the Government for fresh recommendation. The State Government thereafter constituted fresh Search Committee to suggest the panel of names to the office of Vice-Chancellor. Again the name of Prof.C.P.Siddasharma was recommended. Again, the Chancellor differed with the recommendation of the State Government and the proposal was returned. Thereafter, the Search Committee submitted fresh panel of names for recommendation to the Government. The Panel had suggested Dr.Hemanth Kumar G., Dr.Hosetti B.B. and Dr.Midatala Rani. The recommendation forwarded by the State Government was approved by the Chancellor under the impugned Notification dtd. 16/11/2018 as per Annexure-C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no proper consideration by the Search Committee insofar as the petitioner's case is concerned. It is his submission that the petitioner is having higher qualification and is more meritorious than the 4th respondent who is appointed as Vice-Chancellor under the impugned Notification. The petitioner is having clean record as far as his academic qualification and also his Administrative experience of more than 8 years. The petitioner also possesses qualification of Post Doctoral Fellowship from USA. The petitioner is having clean record as far as his academic qualification and also his Administrative experience of more than 8 years. The petitioner also possesses qualification of Post Doctoral Fellowship from USA. It is also contended that apart from the merit, the Chancellor also should look into the equity as well as social justice. The petitioner being Scheduled Caste person, ought to have been considered for appointment as Vice-Chancellor, Mysore University. It is his submission that the petitioner is fully qualified and was eligible for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. But the case of the petitioner was ignored without there being any reason. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Search Committee constituted by the Government under Sec. 14 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on assessing the relative merits of the candidates who had applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor, recommended the panel of names which was forwarded to the Governor, who, after examining the proposal of the State Government issued notification under Annexure-C dtd. 16/11/2018. It is submitted that the petitioner's case was considered by the Search Committee and Search Committe has not found any merit in the candidature of the petitioner. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel Sri.B.Vinayaka appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the Search Committee, on assessing the relative merits of all the applicants recommended the panel of names to the Government. The Government in turn forwarded the same to the Governor, who is the Chancellor of the University and the Chancellor, after taking into consideration the merit, equity and social justice, appointed the 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore. Further, it is contended that this Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the Search Committee and in support of his contention, he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 . 6. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University in pursuance of Annexure-A/Notification. The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed as contemplated under Sec. 14 of the Act. Sec. 14(1) to (6) of the Act reads as follows: "14. The Vice-Chancellor: (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University. 6. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor of Mysore University in pursuance of Annexure-A/Notification. The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed as contemplated under Sec. 14 of the Act. Sec. 14(1) to (6) of the Act reads as follows: "14. The Vice-Chancellor: (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University. (2) The State Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of four persons of whom, one shall be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the University Grants Commission, one by the State Government and one by the Syndicate. The State Government shall appoint one of the members as the Chairman of the Committee. The Secretary to Government incharge of higher education or his nominee not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to Government shall be the convenor of the Search Committee. (3) No person connected with the affairs of the State Government, the University or any college or institution affiliated to the University shall be nominated as the member of the Search Committee. (4) The Search Committee shall submit to the State Government a panel of three persons who are eminent academicians, in the alphabetical order. The State Government shall forward the panel to the Chancellor who shall keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government, appoint one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor: Provided that the Chancellor may with the concurrence of the State Government call for a second panel if he considers it necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a second panel which shall be final. (5) No person shall be appointed or hold office of the Vice-Chancellor if he has attained the age of sixty five years. (6) The Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor and the provisions of sub- sec. (5) hold the office for a period of four years. He shall not be eligible for reappointment, for a second term." Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 14 requires the State Government to constitute a Search Committee, consisting of four persons and one of the members as Chairman of the Committee. The Search Committee shall submit to the State Government, the panel of three persons who are eminent, academicians, in the alphabetical order. The Search Committee shall submit to the State Government, the panel of three persons who are eminent, academicians, in the alphabetical order. Then the State Government shall forward the same to the Chancellor, who shall, keeping in view the merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government appoint one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor. 7. In the case on hand, the Search Committee appointed by the State Government recommended three names i.e., Dr.Hemanth Kumar, Dr.Hosetty B.B., and Dr.Midatala Rani. Out of above panel of names, the Governor who is the Chancellor of the University keeping in view the merit, equity and social justice and concurring with the State Government, recommended the name of 4th respondent and appointed him as Vice-Chancellor of the Mysore University for a period of four years or till he attains the age of 67 years whichever is earlier. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that he is better meritorious and the Search Committee failed to consider the petitioner's case in proper perspective is to be noticed only for the purpose of rejecting the same. The Search Committee constituted by the State Government under Sec. 14(2) of the Act is an Expert Committee consisting of nominees of the Chancellor, University Grants Commission, State Government and the Syndicate. The Search Committee would assess the relative merits taking note of various aspects and the academic record of each candidate. The purpose of constituting the Search Committee is to maintain transparency in the process of appoint of Vice-Chancellors to the University. It is purely the function of the Expert Search Committee to assess the eligibility and suitability of candidates. The Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the Search Committee or the recommendation of the State Government. This Court would not enter into the shoes of, or would not assume the role of Search Committee to assess the relative merits of the petitioner nor 4th respondent, who is appointed as Vice- Chancellor. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularity or defect in constitution of Search Committee, so as to interfere with the selection process. The petitioner has also not alleged any mala-fide or pointed out any illegality in the selection process, except contending that he is more meritorious than respondent No. 4. The petitioner has not pointed out any procedural irregularity or defect in constitution of Search Committee, so as to interfere with the selection process. The petitioner has also not alleged any mala-fide or pointed out any illegality in the selection process, except contending that he is more meritorious than respondent No. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited decision, at paragraph 9 has held as follows: "9. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize 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. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala-fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that 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 selection 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." 9. A reading of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court makes it clear that the decision of the Selection Committee could be interfered with only on the ground of illegality or patent material irregularity or procedure vitiating selection or proved mala-fides. None of the above grounds is pressed into service nor made out to interfere with the appointment of 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the Mysore University. None of the above grounds is pressed into service nor made out to interfere with the appointment of 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the Mysore University. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned notification bearing No GS 21 MUM 2016 dtd. 16/11/2018 vide Annexure-C. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.