Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manjunath Mallinath Hiremath, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (PG) in English pursuant to a notification dated 11.01.2014 issued by the Karnataka University, Dharwad. The notification prescribed qualifications including a good academic record with at least 55% marks. The petitioner was called for interview and participated in the selection process. However, the University appointed the 2nd respondent, Smt. Sridevi P.G., to the post vide office order dated 26.02.2014. The petitioner challenged this appointment by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the appointment order and direct the University to consider his case. The petitioner alleged that the selection process was arbitrary and that he was more qualified than the 2nd respondent. The University defended the selection, stating that the Selection Committee had evaluated all candidates based on merit and found the 2nd respondent to be the most suitable. The court examined the records and found that the University had followed the prescribed procedure, including the constitution of a Selection Committee as per the University's statutes. The court noted that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that the selection was vitiated by mala fides or illegality. The court held that the selection process was fair and transparent, and the petitioner had no right to be appointed merely because he had applied. The court also held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the University to appoint the petitioner when a valid appointment had already been made. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of the 2nd respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Selection Process - University - The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Professor (PG) in English by the Karnataka University, Dharwad, alleging that the selection process was arbitrary and that he was more qualified. The court examined the selection process and found that the University had followed the prescribed procedure, including the constitution of a Selection Committee, evaluation of candidates, and recommendation based on merit. The court held that the selection process was fair and transparent, and the petitioner failed to establish any illegality or mala fides. (Paras 1-10) B) Writ of Mandamus - Discretionary Remedy - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the University to consider his case for appointment. The court held that a writ of mandamus is a discretionary remedy and cannot be granted to compel an authority to act in a particular manner unless there is a legal duty to do so. Since the University had already made a valid appointment, the prayer for mandamus was not maintainable. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Professor (PG) in English by the 1st respondent-University was arbitrary and illegal, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the University to consider his case for appointment.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The appointment of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Professor (PG) in English is upheld.
Law Points
- Selection process
- Appointment
- Qualification
- University
- Writ of Mandamus
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
