HC upholds order quashing Bangalore University Vice Chancellor's appointment

The Governor had appointed Venugopal as Vice Chancellor on June 12, 2018

In a setback to Bangalore University Vice-Chancellor Prof K R Venugopal, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday upheld a single-judge order quashing his appointment.

The judgement comes at a time when Venugopal has only three months to complete his term. He is due for retirement on June 12.

The division bench comprising Justice S Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar — which heard separate writ appeals filed by Bangalore University, the office of the Governor, Venugopal and the Higher Education Department challenging the single-judge bench order — had previously reserved its verdict.

The bench, in its Wednesday order, said: “The view expressed by the learned single judge in dismissing the writ petition cannot be held to be vitiated. We find no reason to interfere with the well-considered order.”

The Governor had appointed Venugopal on June 12, 2018. Challenging the appointment, Prof Sangamesh Patil, a professor at Gulbarga University and a contender for the top post in BU, had approached the high court, contending that it was illegal as there was no approval from the state government.

The single-judge bench, which heard Patil’s petition, quashed Venugopal’s appointment on September 24, 2019. The single judge had noted that there was no concurrence from the state government because both the chief minister and the higher education minister had recommended Patil’s name.

However, the division bench ordered a stay, allowing Venugopal to continue.

The state government contended that the appointment order dated June 12, 2018, was subsequently ratified by the state government on June 28, 2018, and as such it wasn’t
vitiated.

A senior counsel for Prof Venugopal pleaded that with just three months left in the tenure, disturbing him from the post at the fag end of his service would not be appropriate.

The division bench said that any ratification said to have been made on June 28, 2018, to the appointment order dated June 22, 2018, cannot cure the defects and validate the invalid action.

“It is a well-settled legal principle that when the statute prescribes a power to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing has to be done in that way or not at all. This legal principle is succinctly followed in a catena of decisions. Having regard to these aspects, the view expressed by the learned single bench in dismissing the writ petition cannot be held to be vitiated. We find no reasons to interfere with the well-considered order of the learned single bench,” the division bench said.

Speaking to DH, advocate Rahamathulla Kothwal said, “Writ petitions challenging the earlier order have been dismissed and the earlier order of the single-judge bench has been upheld by the divisional bench.”

Venugopal told DH that he was yet to get the judgement of the copy and that he would consult the Governor’s office on the further course of action.

Check out latest DH videos here