Vice-Chancellor of Bangalore University Prof KR Venugopal on Monday, March 21 moved the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order setting aside his appointment to the post. The initial order to set aside his appointment was passed by a single judge bench on September 24, 2019, and the same was confirmed by a High Court division bench consisting of Justice S Sujatha and Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar on March 16, 2022. It is this order that Prof Venugopal has challenged in his Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court.
The Registrar of Bangalore University, Prof Venugopal and office of the Chancellor (Governor) of Bangalore University and the state government had challenged the single judge's order which was passed after hearing a petition filed by Dr Sangamesh Patil, questioning the appointment on grounds of "concurrence". The division bench had initially stayed the single judge's order during the pendency of the appeals, which allowed Prof Venugopal to continue as the VC. However, the Division Bench on March 16 said, "Any ratification said to have been made on June 28, 2018 to the appointment order dated June 12, 2018 cannot cure the defects and validate the invalid action. It is 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," thus setting aside his appointment to the post of the VC.
The contention of the challenge to his appointment, according to the petitioner Patil, was that the state government's concurrence was not obtained as per Section 14(4) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000, before appointing Venugopal by issuing notification dated June 12, 2018. In his appeal to the Apex Court, Prof Venugopal contended that the judgment was contrary to the legal principles and facts of the case. He claimed, "The High Court has erroneously interpreted the word 'concurrence' mentioned in Section 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. 'Concurrence' does not mandate whether the concurrence is to be granted prior or post the appointment/decision made by the Chancellor and the weightage for the time or instance granting such concurrence."
He also argued that the High Court ignored the fundamental procedure that governs the appointment of the VC of the state university by the Chancellor. He said that the eligible candidates are selected by the state government through the Search Committee and not by the Chancellor. This means that any candidate being approved by the Chancellor from the list forwarded by the state government will be deemed to have had concurrence of the state government innately, he argued.
