Case towards Bangalore College vice-chancellor reaches Supreme Court docket; Consent misunderstood, declare undone – Edexlive


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

Bengaluru College Vice Chancellor Professor KR Venugopal on Monday, March 21 moved the Supreme Court docket towards an order of the Karnataka Excessive Court docket quashing his appointment to the submit. The preliminary order quashing his appointment was handed by a single decide bench on September 24, 2019, and was confirmed by a excessive court docket bench of Justices S Sujatha and Justice Shivshankar Amarnavar on March 16, 2022. This order has been challenged within the Supreme Court docket by Prof. Venugopal in his particular depart petition.

The Workplace of the Registrar, Bangalore College, Prof. Venugopal and the Workplace of the Chancellor (Governor) of Bangalore College and the State Authorities challenged the one decide’s order, which was handed after listening to a petition filed by Dr. The appointment was questioned on the grounds of “. The division bench had initially stayed the one decide’s order, which had allowed Prof Venugopal to proceed as VC, throughout the pendency of the attraction. Nevertheless, on March 16, the Division Bench noticed, “Any ratification made on June 28, 2018 to the appointment order dated June 12, 2018 can’t rectify the defects and validate invalid motion. It could nicely established authorized precept that when the statute prescribes the ability to do a sure factor in a sure manner, that factor have to be executed that manner or under no circumstances,” thus nullifying his appointment to the submit of VC.

In accordance with petitioner Patil, the competition of the problem to his appointment was that previous to the appointment of Venugopal by notification dated June 12, 2018, the concurrence of the State Authorities was not obtained in accordance with Part 14(4) of the Karnataka College Act, 2000. In his attraction to the Supreme Court docket, Prof Venugopal argued that the judgment was opposite to the authorized rules and details of the case. He claimed, “The Excessive Court docket has misinterpreted the phrase ‘consent’ as talked about in Part 14(4) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. ‘Consent’ doesn’t essentially imply that the consent needs to be given earlier than or after appointment. / The choice made by the Chancellor and the time or occasion of such consent being given weightage.”

He additionally argued that the Excessive Court docket missed the elemental course of that governs the appointment of the VC of a state college by the Chancellor. He stated that the eligible candidates are chosen by the State Authorities via the Search Committee and never by the Chancellor. Which means any candidate from the record forwarded by the state authorities, being accepted by the Chancellor, will likely be deemed to have had the concurrence of the state authorities, he argued.

Wire



Supply hyperlink

Related Posts