“Professors Have No Public Function to Discharge”: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Petition, Finds No Basis to Treat Teaching Posts as Public Office
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun dismissed a writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against an Associate Professor at Bangalore University. The Court held that the post of Associate Professor is not a public office within the meaning of law governing quo warranto proceedings. The Court declined to examine the academic or procedural qualifications of the individual concerned, noting that the sine qua non for issuing such a writ was not met. The petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners for abuse of legal process.
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove respondent no. 5 from the post of Associate Professor at Bangalore University. The petitioners, describing themselves as public-spirited individuals interested in improving education standards, challenged the eligibility of the respondent to hold the post. The petition was styled as a public interest litigation.
Respondent no. 5 was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the Sericulture Department of Bangalore University on 26 February 2003. He was subsequently promoted to Assistant Professor, then Associate Professor by order dated 19 December 2017, and eventually to the post of Professor. The petitioners contended that the appointment and promotion of respondent no. 5 were contrary to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2013, and subsequent amendments.
It was alleged that respondent no. 5 failed to meet the criteria under Category III of the UGC’s assessment framework for academic and research contributions. The petitioners claimed that the respondent's academic work, including his thesis and research papers, were affected by plagiarism, reportedly amounting to 72%. On this basis, they submitted that the respondent had usurped a public office without fulfilling the necessary statutory qualifications.
Respondent no. 5 denied all allegations and maintained that his assessment was duly conducted by a properly constituted committee in accordance with UGC norms. Bangalore University, represented by respondent no. 2, filed a response defending the promotion process. It stated that the respondent had been promoted in accordance with all applicable regulations and that his name was recommended by the Syndicate following a valid assessment process.
The University Grants Commission (respondent no. 4) confirmed that the promotion had been carried out based on the 2013 and 2016 Regulations. It clarified that all assessments were conducted using the prescribed methodology in Appendix-IV, Tables I to III of the Regulations. UGC further noted that the respondent was promoted as Professor when the 2018 Regulations were in force and confirmed that the process followed for his elevation complied with all clauses under those rules.
Respondent no. 3, the Chancellor of Bangalore University, and respondent no. 1, the State of Karnataka, also appeared through respective counsel. Each respondent denied the allegations and defended the legitimacy of the appointment.
The petitioners relied on the claim that respondent no. 5 had not met the research publication requirements and had committed academic misconduct. They contended that such violations disqualified him from appointment and thereby justified the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
The Court recorded that the essential requirements for issuing a writ of quo warranto must be satisfied before the Court can proceed. It stated: “The writ of quo warranto is a special kind of prerogative writs. The Constitutional Courts may issue the writ of quo warranto to unseat and oust the holder of public office or public post, when such holder is found to have occupied and usurped such post even though the holder does not fulfill the statutory eligibility criteria for the post and that he is unqualified to hold the post.”
The Bench recorded that three conditions must be met: the post must be a public office, the appointment must be shown to be contrary to statutory provisions, and the holder must lack legal authority to occupy the post. Citing University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, the Court recorded: “The procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right.”
In reference to the specific office in question, the Court observed: “Professors and Readers of the University clearly do not exercise any governmental functions nor are they invested with the power or charged with the duty of acting in execution or enforcement of law. They are merely employees under the statutory body. They cannot therefore in any sense be described as holders of public offices in respect of which quo warranto would lie.”
The Court examined Section 11 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and recorded that the post of Associate Professor is not included among the officers of the university. It stated: “An Associate Professor or Professor has no public function to discharge. An Associate Professor or Professor does not interact publicly in his duties nor discharge duties in public domain. Their post cannot be characterised or classified as public office contemplated and as understood for the purpose of issuance of writ of quo warranto.”
Addressing the scope of judicial inquiry under quo warranto, the Court stated: “It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority.”
The Bench also recorded concerns regarding the petitioner’s locus. It stated: “The public interest petitioner who wants the court to issue a writ of quo warranto, must satisfy a stricter standard as a bonafide litigant. His locus as a public interest petition must be untainted.” The Court added: “Not only that the petitioner seeking writ of quo warranto should not have any personal motive involved. As a relator to the facts also he should ensure himself completely insulated from personal consideration.”
In light of the facts and pleadings, the Court stated: “The petitioners had different motive to grind in filing this petition, styling it as public interest petition to seek the quo warranto writ with an intention to oust respondent No.5 to satisfy personal score.” It further noted: “This petition turns out to be an abuse of process of law.”
The Division Bench concluded that the petition did not meet the legal requirements for a writ of quo warranto. The Court recorded: “For all the above considerations, the post of Associate Professor held by respondent No.5 is not a public office. The sine qua non for issuance of writ of quo warranto is not satisfied in the present case.”
The Court declined to adjudicate the question of whether the respondent met the required qualifications. It stated: “No finding is rendered whether respondent No.5 was qualified for holding the post, as the said issue is not gone into on merits, as not required.”
On the issue of costs, the Court recorded unrefuted statements indicating that the petition was motivated by personal vendetta. It stated: “The petitioners filed the present petition out of ill-will, with personal and professional vengeance and with unclean hands.” In support of this finding, the Court cited an affidavit stating: “Petitioner No. 3 is none other than the former colleague and Chairman of the Department… Now having colluded with Petitioner No. 1 and 2 have approached this court with a petition styled as a public interest litigation with a camouflage to foster personal vendetta.”
Based on this, the Court imposed costs. It directed: “The petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.7,500/- to be paid within four weeks from today by the petitioner to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Arun B.M., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Niloufer Akbar, Additional Government Advocate, Sri B. Pramod, Central Government Counsel for Respondent No.2; Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate, Sri Shrikar Jayagovind, Advocate, Sri Lakshmikant G., Advocate
Case Title: H.T. Umesh & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: Not provided
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2906 of 2021 (S-PRO-PIL)
Full Names of the Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria (Chief Justice), Justice M.I. Arun
[Read/Download order]
