HC allows Lokanath to function as Mysore varsity V-C temporarily during pendency of his appeal

A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Thursday allowed Lokanath N.K. to discharge functions as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore during the pendency of an appeal filed by him questioning a single judge’s September 12 verdict setting aside his appointment.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Thursday allowed Lokanath N.K. to discharge functions as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore during the pendency of an appeal filed by him questioning a single judge’s September 12 verdict setting aside his appointment.

However, the court made it clear that Prof. Lokanath could not take any major policy decision during this period, as he had been allowed to discharge functions as Vice-Chancellor so that the administration of the university did not suffer during the interregnum.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit, passed the interim order while hearing an appeal filed by Prof. Lokanath.

The single judge had quashed recommendations made by two separate search committees in December 2022 and March 2023 empanelling persons to be considered for the post of Vice-Chancellor and the notification of March 23, 2023 appointng Prof. Lokanath to the post.

It was held by the single judge that the search committee did not adhere to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission on appointment of Vice-Chancellors as both the committees did not give weightage in writing on three factors — academic excellence, exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate expertise in academic and administrative governance — on accessing the eligibility of persons on zone of consideration for the post.

The single judge also stated that the search committee will have to consider a fresh all the eligible persons, including Prof. Lokanath, for the post by following the three factors of the UGC regulation.

In case of Prof. Lokanath, the single judge said that his candidature would have to be considered afresh by the committee on merits without reference to the litigation relating to his recruitment and the first information report, registered against him and several others on the allegations of some encroachment of sites, which was subsequently quashed by the court.