Posts of professors, readers or teachers not ‘public office’: Karnataka High Court  

Teachers, readers or teachers in a university, due to the very nature of the position, work and duties, cannot be treated as holders of the public office; And these publications cannot be classified as a public office as contemplated for the issuance of writing, writing or writing Quo Guarano For expelling a person from the office for not having the required qualifications, said the Superior Court of Karnataka.

A DIVISION BENCH BUDISING CHIEF JUSTICE NV ANJARIA AND JUSTICE MI ARUN MADESIS OBSERVATIONS WHILE DIVISSING WITH COSTS A PIL PILITION, WHICH HAD SOUGHT REMOVAL FROM M. SHIVHANGANKAR, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCE, BANDGAL. Brom) ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore ,, Bangalore, Bangalore, Bangalore. Bangalore

The petitioners, ht umeh, S. Ananda and HP Putaraju, who is a retired professor of BU, had sought an order of Quo Guarano Against Mr. Shivashankar alleging that he did not have the qualification required to occupy the position of an associated teacher previously and now the position of professor, according to the rules of the University Subsidies Commission (UGC).

“An associated teacher or the teacher can be part of the Faculty, but for all purposes, including the functional, he is an university employee. The professors, the assistant professors or the associated professors have a jury relationship with the university and that,” “” “” “” “” “

“The concept of public office in the general context, as well as in the concept of Quo Guarano In particular, budget to be a position or office that has clear public traps … teachers, readers or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category. Without any stretch of the imagination, due to their own nature of the position and work and the duties, they cannot become holders of public office, ”the bank observed.

I only thought that the BU and the UGC told the Court that the promotion of Mr. Shivashankar to these publications was made strictly according to the rules, the bank did not enter this issue while indicating that it cannot entertain the petition since the position of Mr. Shivashankar is not a public office, since the courts can consider an order of order of order Quo Guarano Only against those who have a public office.

Meanwhile, the bank said that the petitioners had “different reasons to grind the personal score” through the petition, since Mr. Shivashankar had informed the court in an affidavit that the petition presented “out of bad will, with personal and professional revenge.” He had pointed out that Mr. Putaraju, who was former president of the department, had recruited Mr. Shivashankar for his promotion to the associated teacher position in 2016 as for the UGC standards. When qualifying the petition as abuse of the law process, the bank dismissed it by imposing a cost of ₹ 7,500 to the petitioners.