Posts of professor, reader or teacher instead of “public office”: Karnataka High Court

Due to the nature of positions, jobs and responsibilities, professors, readers or teachers at universities cannot be considered public officials; these positions cannot be classified as public officials; Quo Warranto Karnataka High Court said in order to expel a person from the office.

The branch judges including Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Mi Arun canceled the PIL petition from their professorship positions while expelling the PIL petition with the PIL petition.

Petitioner, HT Umesh, S. Ananda and HP Puttaraju, a retired professor at BU, seek a writ Quo Warranto Oppose Mr. Shivashankar, claiming that he does not have the necessary qualifications to serve as associate professor and now professor positions in accordance with the norms of the University Grants Committee (UGC).

“Associate professor or professor may be part of the faculty, but for all purposes he is an employee of the university. A lecturer, assistant professor or associate professor has a Jural relationship with the university, and this relationship is just an employee-employer relationship.”

“In general environment and the concept of public office and Quo Warranto Especially the premise is that there are clear public traps in postal or offices. On the bench, they have no imagination, because of the nature of their positions and the work and responsibilities attached, they cannot become public officials. ”

Even though the BU and UGC told the court that the promotion of these positions was strictly in accordance with the norms, the bench did not involve the issue, while noting that it could not incur petitions because Mr. Shivashankar’s position was not a court, as the court could consider issuing a public office. Quo Warranto Only for those who hold public office.

Meanwhile, the bench noted that the petitioner had “different motivations to grind individual scores” through the petition, as Mr. Shivashankar informed the court in his affidavit that the petition was “starting with personal and professional revenge,” noted that Puttaraju, former chairman of the department, himself suggested that Mr. Shivashankar be promoted to the position of Associate Professor Way in 2016 under the UGC specification. The bench called the petition an abuse process, dismissed it and levyed it from the petitioner at a price of Rs 7,500.