Karnataka HC rejects plea against S Vidyashankar's appointment as VC of Visvesvaraya University

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of Dr S Vidyashankar as Vice-Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) at Belagavi [Yogesh B v. State of Karnataka].

A bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan said that Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked repeatedly to unsettle an appointment in the absence of a clear legal infirmity.

"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," it added.

The Court said the petitioner had not been able to demonstrate that Vidyashankar suffers from any statutory disqualification which could render him ineligible to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor. 

"There is equally no material of such a nature as would establish that the appointment was made by an authority lacking jurisdiction or in patent violation of a mandatory statutory requirement," it added.

The appeal arose from a petition filed by Yogesh B and Venugopal KA, who had questioned Vidyashankar's continuance as VTU Vice-Chancellor through a writ of quo warranto.

The petitioners had challenged the original appointment notification dated September 29, 2022, alleging violations of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and Section 13 of the VTU Act, 1994.

They had also questioned the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee, including the alleged absence of a UGC nominee, and raised objections concerning Vidyashankar's academic credentials and antecedents.

After the petitioners failed to secure any relief from a single judge, Yogesh B filed an appeal in the matter.

On September 10, the Court ruled that the appellant had failed to establish any statutory disqualification or patent illegality in Vidyashankar's appointment warranting issuance of a writ of quo warranto.

"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. That essential requirement has not been satisfied in the present case," the Bench said.

The Court observed that proceedings of a constitutional court cannot be permitted to be used as a forum for ventilating personal grievances, settling individual scores or furthering personal interests and egos.

It added that the timing of the proceedings was of significance as the latest challenge had been filed nearly three years after the original appointment and after the earlier challenge had travelled to the Supreme Court.

The Court emphasised that proceedings for quo warranto require the petitioner to establish that the incumbent is holding a public office without lawful authority.

It explained the jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a comparative assessment of candidates or determine whether another candidate would have been more suitable.

“The scope of the inquiry is only restricted to ‘eligibility’ and not the ‘suitability’ of the candidate holding public office," it added.

The Court therefore held that even assuming the petitioner was entitled to invoke quo warranto jurisdiction, no case had been made out for issuing the writ.

Senior Advocates Uday Holla, Aditya Sondhi and DR Ravishankar along with advocates Santosh S Nagarale, Abhishek Kumar and MP Srikanth, appeared for the respondents.

The State Government was represented by Additional Government Advocate B Ravindranath, while the University Grants Commission was represented by advocate Showri HR.

Appellant Yogesh B was represented by Senior Advocate Naveen R Nath, assisted by advocate AK Vasantha.

[Read Judgment]