University Professors Don't Discharge Duties In Public Domain, Their Post Not 'Public Office' For Invoking Writ Of 'Quo Warranto': Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that lecturers, assistant professors or associate professors bear jural relationship with the University and since they do not discharge any public function, their post cannot be characterized as 'public office' for invoking the writ of Quo Warranto.

Writ of Quo Warranto can be issued where the person holding public office does not meet the eligibility criteria or when the appointment was contrary to the statutory rules.

A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun observed,

"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...The concept of public office in general context as well as in the concept of quo warranto in particular is presupposed to be a post or office which have a clear public trappings. It must be a post or office where the incumbent is associated with duties of public nature. The functional realm of the order of office should be one to travel to public domain. Professors, readers or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category."

The bench held thus while dismissing a petition seeking to oust Dr M Shivashankar from the post of Associate Professor at the Bangalore University on the ground that he is not qualified. It was the case of petitioners that by getting appointed to the post, Dr Shivashankar has usurped the public office.

Dr Shivashankar submitted that his assessment was properly done and his appointment to the post was done after verification that he satisfied the UGC norms. The University also filed a reply defending his appointment.

At the outset, the Court observed that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority. It further emphasised that such litigant must satisfy a "stricter standard" as a bonafide litigant and his locus must be untainted.

"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...It would be trite that the quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will. Even otherwise only a person who comes before the Court bonafide and for real public purpose, can claim the locus.”

Then the Court referred to Section 11 of the Karnataka State University's Act, 2000 which gives a list of Officers of the University. It held “An Associate Professor or the Professor, as respondent No.5 is, may be part of the faculty, but for all purposes including functional, he is an employee of the University.”

It added, “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. In this view, as no relief can be granted on this score alone, need doesn't arise to go into any other aspect of merit. The court therefore has not gone into any other question of merit.”

Relying on the averments made by Dr Shivashankar in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners filed the petition with personal and professional vengeance, the court said,

“The aforesaid dimension of the subject matter controversy necessarily goes to show that the petitioners had different motives to grind in filing this petition, styling it as a public interest petition to seek the quo warranto writ with an intention to oust respondent No.5 to satisfy personal score. In that view, the petition turns out to be an abuse of process of law. A token cost of Rs.7,500/- deserves to be imposed on the petitioners.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Arun B M for Petitioners.

AGA Nilofer Akbar FOR RESPONDENT No.1.

CGC B. PRAMOD, FOR RESPONDENT No.2

Advocate T.P Rajendra Kumar Sungay FOR RESPONDENT No.3.

Advocate Shrikar Jayagovind for RESPONDENT No.4.

Advocate Lakshmikath G FOR RESPONDENT No.5.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 136

Case Title: H T Umesh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 2906 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order