Case in opposition to Bangalore College Vice-Chancellor reaches SC; concurrence misunderstood, claims unde- Edexlive

Supreme Court docket of India, New Delhi | (Pic: PTI)

Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore College Prof KR Venugopal on Monday, March 21 moved the Supreme Court docket in opposition to a Karnataka Excessive Court docket order setting apart his appointment to the publish. The preliminary order to put aside his appointment was handed by a single choose bench on September 24, 2019, and the identical was confirmed by a Excessive Court docket division bench consisting of Justice S Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar on March 16, 2022. It’s this order that Prof Venugopal has challenged in his Particular Depart Petition to the Supreme Court docket. 

The Registrar of Bangalore College, Prof Venugopal and workplace of the Chancellor (Governor) of Bangalore College and the state authorities had challenged the one choose’s order which was handed after listening to a petition filed by Dr Sangamesh Patil, questioning the appointment on grounds of “concurrence”. The division bench had initially stayed the one choose’s order through the pendency of the appeals, which allowed Prof Venugopal to proceed because the VC. Nevertheless, the Division Bench on March 16 stated, “Any ratification stated to have been made on June 28, 2018 to the appointment order dated June 12, 2018 can not treatment the defects and validate the invalid motion. It’s effectively settled authorized precept that when the statute prescribes an influence to do a sure factor in a sure manner, that factor must be achieved in that manner or under no circumstances,” thus setting apart his appointment to the publish of the VC. 

The competition of the problem to his appointment, in accordance with the petitioner Patil, was that the state authorities’s concurrence was not obtained as per Part 14(4) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000, earlier than appointing Venugopal by issuing notification dated June 12, 2018. In his attraction to the Apex Court docket, Prof Venugopal contended that the judgment was opposite to the authorized rules and details of the case. He claimed, “The Excessive Court docket has erroneously interpreted the phrase ‘concurrence’ talked about in Part 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. ‘Concurrence’ doesn’t mandate whether or not the concurrence is to be granted prior or publish the appointment/resolution made by the Chancellor and the weightage for the time or occasion granting such concurrence.”

He additionally argued that the Excessive Court docket ignored the elemental process that governs the appointment of the VC of the state college by the Chancellor. He stated that the eligible candidates are chosen by the state authorities by way of the Search Committee and never by the Chancellor. Which means that any candidate being authorised by the Chancellor from the checklist forwarded by the state authorities shall be deemed to have had concurrence of the state authorities innately, he argued.


Supply hyperlink