In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that university lecturers, assistant professors, and associate professors do not hold "public office" and hence are not subject to a writ of quo warranto. The Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to oust Dr. M. Shivashankar from the post of Associate Professor at Bangalore University, holding that such teaching roles lack the essential criteria to be categorized as public office.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun ruled:
"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 the public domain."
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Reverses Trial Court's Suo-Motu Discharge of BBMP Officials in Corruption Cases
The judges emphasized that quo warranto is applicable only when a person occupies a public post without fulfilling legal eligibility requirements. For this, the office must involve public duties or functions, which academic positions within universities do not.
The petition, filed by three individuals, including a retired professor and a computer application graduate, accused Dr. Shivashankar of usurping public office by securing his position without meeting University Grants Commission (UGC) norms. They alleged academic misconduct and non-compliance with UGC regulations, including a claim of 72% plagiarism in his research submissions.
In response, Dr. Shivashankar and Bangalore University strongly defended the appointment process. They stated that his promotions—from Lecturer in 2003, to Assistant Professor, and eventually Associate Professor in 2017—were based on proper evaluation and adherence to UGC rules. The UGC also confirmed that the appointment complied with applicable norms and regulations, including those aimed at preventing plagiarism.
The Court noted that under Section 11 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, faculty members are not classified among the statutory officers of the University. It observed:
The Court reiterated established legal principles, citing landmark cases such as University of Mysore v. C.D. Govindaraja Rao and Rajesh Awasthi v. Nandlal Jaiswal, which define public office for the purpose of quo warranto. The ruling stated that university professors do not hold a position created by the Constitution or a statute involving public duties, and thus cannot be deemed public office holders.
The Court further noted that PILs involving service matters are generally not maintainable, except in rare cases involving true public interest and a genuine need to remove unqualified individuals from public office. However, it concluded that the present petition lacked bona fides.
Dr. Shivashankar's affidavit revealed that the petitioners acted with personal and professional malice. Notably, one of the petitioners had earlier recommended his promotion in an official capacity but later joined the petition against him.
“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.”“Professors, readers or teachers cannot be grouped to treat them in the category [of public office]. By no stretch of imagination, for their very nature of post and the work and duties attached, they cannot become holders of public office.”
Calling the litigation an abuse of court process, the Bench imposed a token cost of ₹7,500 on the petitioners, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
Case Title: H.T. Umesh & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 2906 of 2021 (S-PRO-PIL)
Date of Judgment: April 9, 2025
Coram: Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun
