Karnataka HC says professors do not hold public office

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has observed that the post of a professor or reader cannot be treated as that of a holder of public office.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and MI Arun said this while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of 'quo warranto' for the removal of Dr M Shivashankar, professor, Department of Life Sciences, Bangalore University (BU).

The petition was filed by HT Umesh and retired professor Dr HP Puttaraju — both from Bengaluru — and Dr S Ananda, a resident of Mandya. They contended that Shivashankar did not fulfil the criteria of requisite research publications and academic contributions as per the prevailing norms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) when he was appointed in 2017 as an associate professor.

On the other hand, while both Bangalore University and UGC defended the appointment, Shivashankar submitted that the petition was filed out of ill-will as well as with personal and professional vengeance. It was further stated that Puttaraju was his former colleague and chairman of the department.

It was also submitted that Puttaraju had accorded and forwarded the application for Shivashankar's promotion with a recommendation letter in 2016.

The division bench cited the apex court decisions to reiterate that the concept of public office, in general context as well as in the concept of 'quo warranto' in particular, is presupposed to be a post or office which has clear public trappings.

"It must be a post or office where the incumbent is associated with duties of public nature. The functional realm of the order of office should be one to travel to public domain. Professors, readers or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category. By no stretch of imagination, for their very nature of post and the work and duties attached, they cannot become holders of public office,” the bench said.

The court further said that while a public interest petition is not maintainable in service matters, the exception is that the person is not qualified to hold the public office. The public interest petitioner must satisfy a stricter standard as a bona fide litigant and his locus must be untainted, the bench said.

"The dimension of the subject matter controversy necessarily goes to show that the petitioners had different motives to grind in filing this petition, styling it as a public interest petition to seek the 'quo warranto' writ with an intention to oust respondent no 5 (M Shivashankar) to satisfy personal score.

"In that view, the petition turns out to be an abuse of process of law. A token cost of Rs 7,500 deserves to be imposed on the petitioners,” the bench said, directing that the cost is payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.