DR. J. SHASHIDHARA PRASAD versus GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 27-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. SRINIVASAN, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
DR. J. SHASHIDHARA PRASAD 
A 
v. 
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 27, 1998 
[M. SRINIVASAN AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Mysore University-Vice Chancel/or-Appointment-Appel/ant 
appointed on 20.8.1997 as Vice Chancel/or w.e.f 4.9.1997-0n 21.8.1997 C 
order dated 20.8.1997 rescinded as it came to notice of Chancellor that a 
criminal case was pending against appellant-Order challenged on the 
grounds that before passing the order no opportunity of hearing was given 
and the order cast stigma on the appellant-Held, there was no necessity to 
give opportunity of hearing to appellant-Order does not cast any stigma on D 
appellant-Administrative Law-Principles of natural justice-Opportunity 
of hearing. 
The appellant was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the Mysore University 
by the order dated 20.8.1997 passed by the Governor of Karnataka who was 
also the Chancellor of the University, for a period of3 years w.e.f. 4.9.1997. E 
However, on 21.8.1997 the Chancellor noticed a news item stating that the 
appellant had been facing a criminal case and had been nominated as a Vice 
Chancellor. The Chancellor passed another order rescinding the earlier 
order of appointment of the appellant stating that he found-it not desirable 
to appoint the appellant as Vice Chancellor. The appellant challenged the F 
order in the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. The 
review partition was also dismissed on the ground that the acquittal of the 
appellant in the criminal case was subsequent to the order of the Chancellor. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that he was entitled to notice before G 
the impugned order was passed by the Cliancellor and; that the order would 
cast stigma against the appellant and principles of natural justice required 
an opportunity to be given to the appellant before the order was passed. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
165 
H 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : I. There was no necessity for giving an opportunity to the 
appellant before the Chancellor passed the order dated 21.8.1997 rescinding 
the earlier order dated 20.8~1997. [172-D] 
Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, [1993] 1 SCC 154 
and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Girish Bihari and Ors., [1997] 4 SCC 362, relied 
B on. 
·c 
S. Govindaraju v. Karanataka S.R.TC. and Anr., [1986] 3 SCC 273; 
Shrawan kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [ 1991] Supp 1 SCC 
330; Dr. Boo/ Chand v. The Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, [1968) 1 
SCR 434 and D. Subba Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1975) SC 
94, held inapplicable. 
Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, AIR (1964) SC 449, cited. 
2. The impugned order does not cast any stigma on the appellant. It 
D only indicated that in view of the facts stated in the order it was not desirable 
on the part of the Chancellor to appoint this particular person. If in future 
any vacancy arises and an occasion arises for the selection panel to consider 
different names to the post, nothing prevents that panel from considering the 
name of the appellant also. [172-E-F, G] 
E 
3. The order passed on August 21, 1997 rescinding the earlier order 
F 
G 
of appointment is valid. It is not disputed that the Chancellor has appointed 
respondent no. 2 as Vice Chancellor after cancelling the appointment of the 
appellant. It is also not disputed that a criminal case was pending against the 
appellant on the date on which the order of cancellation of his appointment 
was made. [174-B; 173-H; 174-A[ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5988-
5989 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.97 and 16.1.98 of the Kamataka 
High Court in W.A. No. 4831/97 in C.P.No. 820of1997. 
P.P. Rao and P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant. 
S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General for Karnataka and N. Ganpathy for 
the Respondent No. I. 
H 
K.K. Venugopal, (G.V. Chandrashekhar) and P.P. Singh for the Respondent 
• 
-
DR. J.S. PRASAD v. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 
167 
No.2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
I. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
2. Heard learned counsel on both sides at length. 
3. The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this judgment are 
as follows: 
A 
B 
The Governor of Karnataka, who is the Chancellor of the Mysore 
University, selected the appellant herein, who was Professor in Physics in the C 
University of Mysore to be the Vice Chancellor of the said University whi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.