Karnataka High Court Upholds S Vidyashankar’s Appointment
The Karnataka High Court has firmly dismissed a challenge against the appointment of Dr. S Vidyashankar as Vice-Chancellor of the Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU), Belagavi. This decision was rendered in the case of Yogesh B v. State of Karnataka. The bench, comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan, emphasized that the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked without substantial legal grounds to contest an appointment.
In their ruling, the judges underscored the need for maintaining the dignity of both the judicial process and the office of the Vice-Chancellor. They stated, “The dignity of the office and the sanctity of the judicial process demand that both the office-holder and those who invoke the jurisdiction of the Court act with restraint, bona fides, and fidelity to law.”
Legal Rationale and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to present any statutory disqualifications that would disqualify Vidyashankar from holding the Vice-Chancellor position. Additionally, no evidence was provided to suggest that his appointment was conducted by an authority lacking jurisdiction or violating mandatory statutory requirements.
This appeal was initiated by petitioners Yogesh B and Venugopal KA, who questioned Vidyashankar’s appointment via a writ of quo warranto. They contested the original appointment notification from September 29, 2022, citing alleged non-compliance with UGC Regulations, 2018, and Section 13 of the VTU Act, 1994. The petitioners also raised concerns about the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and questioned Vidyashankar’s academic credentials.
After failing to obtain relief from a single judge, Yogesh B pursued an appeal. However, on September 10, the Court concluded that no statutory disqualification or patent illegality was evident in Vidyashankar’s appointment, thus negating the need for issuing a writ of quo warranto.
More Read
Judicial Observations and Precedents
The Court made it clear that merely alleging irregularities or asserting that another candidate was more meritorious does not suffice. “It is not enough for a petitioner merely to assert that the selection was irregular or that another person was more meritorious. What is required to be established is that the incumbent is holding the office without lawful authority,” stated the Bench.
The judges further remarked that constitutional court proceedings should not be exploited for personal grievances or settling individual disputes. They noted that the timing of the petition was significant, with the challenge emerging almost three years after the original appointment, following earlier proceedings that reached the Supreme Court.
Emphasizing the nature of quo warranto proceedings, the Court clarified that the inquiry is confined to the eligibility of the office-holder, not their suitability. “The scope of the inquiry is only restricted to ‘eligibility’ and not the ‘suitability’ of the candidate holding public office,” the Court added.
More Read
Legal Representation
Senior Advocates Uday Holla, Aditya Sondhi, and DR Ravishankar, alongside advocates Santosh S Nagarale, Abhishek Kumar, and MP Srikanth, represented the respondents. The State Government’s interests were advocated by Additional Government Advocate B Ravindranath, while the University Grants Commission was represented by advocate Showri HR. Senior Advocate Naveen R Nath, assisted by advocate AK Vasantha, represented appellant Yogesh B.
