-1-

WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

PRESENT
®
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT

W.A. NO.100198 OF 2022 (S-RES)

C/w. W.P. NO.101937 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

IN W.A. NO.100198/2022:
BETWEEN:

DR CHIDANANDA P MANSUR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O PARAPPA M MANSUR
DISCHARGING DUTY AS DEAN (AGRI),
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
HANUMANAMATTI,
R/AT MIG 23/A,
SHREE SIDDHAROODHA NILAYA,
JYOTHI COLONY, SAI NAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.
… APPELLANT

(BY SHRI LAXMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE

A/W. SMT. ANUSHA L., SHRI G.I. GACHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE AND
DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN
 -2-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

NEW DELHI 110001.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

4. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURAL & HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

5. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,

KRISHI BHAVAN,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

6. THE SECRETARY,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC),
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 002.

7. CHAIRMAN,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
HEAD OFFICE: NELSON MANDELA MARG,
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 067.

8. REGIONAL OFFICER AND ASST. DIRECTOR,

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE: SOUTH HEALTH CENTER
BUILDING, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
BENGALURU-560 009.

9. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,

DHARWAD-560 005,
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,
 -3-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

10. THE REGISTRAR,

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
DHARWAD-560 005.

11. DR. R.N. BHASKAR,

S/O. LATE R.N. NANJUNDAIAH,
AGE 61 YEARS, WORKING AS DEAN OF
POST GRADUATE STUDIES,
O/O. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
R/AT NO.5, POORNACHANDRA, 1ST A CROSS,
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 024.

12. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,

GKVK, BENGALURU-560 065,
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.

13. REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
GKVK, BENGALURU-560 065.

14. DR. A.M. SHAILAJA, W/O. R. SRINIVASAN,

AGE 59 YEARS, WORKING AS PROFESSOR,
V.S. DENTAL COLLEGE,
O/O. V.S. DENTAL COLLEGE, K.R. ROAD,
V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004,
R/AT NO.30, SHANKARI CHINNAPPA
NAIDU LAYOUT, BANASHANKAR, 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.

15. DR. ARUNA D.R., W/O. VASU A.M.,

AGE 59 YEARS, WORKING AS PROFESSOR,
V.S. DENTAL COLLEGE,
O/O. V.S. DENTAL COLLEGE, K.R. ROAD,
V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 004,
R/AT NO.30, SHANKARI CHINNAPPA NAIDU
LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 041.

16. STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
 -4-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

BENGALURU-560 001.

17. DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (DME),
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION,
BENGALURU-560 001.

18. SECRETARY,
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG KOTLA ROAD,
TEMPLE LANE,
OPP: MATA SUNDARI COLLEGE OF WOMEN,
NEW DELHI-110 002.

19. VICE CHANCELLOR,

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
4TH BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 041.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, G.A. FOR R2, R3, R4 & R16;
SHRI RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE
COURT TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL AND TO SET
ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28.04.2022 DELIVERED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.10638/2021 ALONG
WITH W.P. NO.10628/2021.

IN W.P. NO.101937 OF 2022:

BETWEEN:

DR. CHIDANAND P MANSUR,

S/O PARAPPA M MANSUR,
DISCHARGING DURTY AS DEAN
(AGRI) COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
HANUMANAMATTI,
R/AT MIG 23/A, SHREE SIDDHAROODHA NILAYA,
JYOTHI COLONY, SAI NAGAR,
HUBBALLI,
 -5-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 031.

… PETITIONER

(BY SHRI LAXMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE

A/W. SMT. ANUSHA L., SHRI G.I. GACHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA,
REP THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND
DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

4. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

5. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,

KRISHNI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

6. THE SECRETARY,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 002.

7. CHAIRMAN,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
 -6-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

HEAD OFFICE, NELSON MANDELA MARG,

VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 067.

8. REGIONAL OFFICER AND ASST. DIRECTOR,

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE: SOUTH HEALTH CENTRE BUILDING,
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY CAMPUS,
BENGALURU-560 009.

9. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,

DHARWAD-560 005,
REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.

10. THE REGISTRAR.

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
DHARWAD-560 005.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA. FOR R2 TO R4;

SHRI B.A. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
& SHRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATES FOR R5;
SHRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SHRI ANOOP DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8;
SHRI RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE
AGE OF SUPERANNUATION TILL THE PETITIONERS ATTAIN THE
AGE OF 65 YEARS AS PROVIDED BY THE UGC IN TERMS OF
18/07/2018 REGULATION (ANNEXURE-D) AND AS PER THE
LETTER OF THE UGC AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ORDER
DATED 23/03/2007, 04/04/2007, AND 31/12/2008
(ANNEXURES-D1 TO D3) AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT APPEAL & WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN

HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.05.2022,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 -7-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

JUDGMENT

The intra-court appeal in W.A. No.100198/2022 is

filed by a non-party to the Writ Petition No.10638/2021 &

Writ Petition 10628/2021 with leave of the Court calls in

question the Judgment dated 28.04.2022 rendered by a

learned Single Judge of this Court whereby petitioners’

prayer for a direction to continue them in service till they

attain the age of 65 years, in terms of the age of

retirement prescribed by the extant UGC Regulations,

2018, has been negatived.

2. The companion case in W.P. No.101937/2022

is filed by the appellant himself who happens to be a

Dean in the College of Agricultural Sciences. He inter alia

seeks to lay a challenge to Clause 30(8) of the University

Statutes, 1964, which prescribes 62 years as the age of

superannuation. He has also sought for a direction to

continue him in service till he attains the age of 65 years

in terms of UGC Regulations, 2018 and the Central

Government Order dated 02.11.2017.

 -8-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

3. On request, learned GA appears for the

respondent-State Government; learned Panel Advocates

appear for the respondent-University, UGC, AICTE &

ICMR. No notice is issued to the private respondents

No.14 & 15, who were the writ petitioners, who lost their

case at the hands of learned Single Judge. Liberty is

reserved to them to challenge the impugned order

independently.

4. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS:

i) The writ appellant and the writ petitioner are

one and the same person. He has been working as a

Dean (Agri), in the College of Agricultural Sciences, at

Hanumanamatti. The said College is a constituent

institution of the respondent-University of Agricultural

Sciences. He completed the age of 62 years yesterday.

The essential grievance of the appellant/petitioner is

against the prescription of 62 years by the State

Government and the respondent-University as the age of

superannuation. He seeks a direction to these

 -9-
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

respondents inter alia to continue him in service till he

attains the age of 65 years.

ii) The appellant/petitioner, in support of his

case, banks upon the UGC Regulations, 2018,

promulgated in terms of the 2017 recommendations

made by the Pay Review Committee. In substance, he

contends that after the 42nd Amendment, education

figures in List-3, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India

and therefore, the UGC Regulations, 2018 partaking the

character of Central Law override the impugned statute

of the University, which is the State Law, and that

prescribe 65 years as the age of retirement for the

Teachers in all Agricultural Universities and their

constituent Colleges. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr.

V.Lakshminarayana, appearing for the

appellant/petitioner in support of his submission invoked

certain decisions of Apex Court.

iii) Learned GA appearing for the State and

learned Panel Counsel appearing for the University resist

 - 10 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

the case of appellant/petitioner essentially contending

that: the subject UGC Regulations do not mandatorily

prescribe 65 years as the age of superannuation for the

employees of Agricultural Universities established under

the State Legislations; even in the UGC Pay Package, an

option is given to these Universities to adopt the said

age, if they so wish; the respondent-University having

prescribed 62 years as the age of retirement consistent

with the Government Order dated 28.10.2009, the

appellant/petitioner is not justified in seeking relief of the

kind, to the contrary.

iv) Learned GA vehemently contends that the age

of retirement is a condition of service; it is regulated by

the provisions of the University Statutes which are

promulgated under the provisions of State Enactment;

the UGC Regulations leave the prescription of retirement

age to the will of the University; that being the position,

the question of repugnancy between the Central Law and

the State Law even remotely does not arise; lastly, even
 - 11 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

the State Government has prescribed 62 years as the

age of superannuation for these employees, which the

University has adopted. Both, the Panel Counsel and the

Government Advocate relied upon certain decisions of

this Court in support of their version.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the case papers, we decline

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

a) The respondent-University is established

under Section 3 of the University of Agricultural Sciences

Act, 1963 (hereafter referred to as ‘the State Act’).

Section 39 of the State Act provides for promulgating

Statutes regulating the service conditions of employees

of the University of Agricultural Sciences. Accordingly,

the Statutes having been made and resolution having

been passed, the age of 62 years admittedly, has been

prescribed as the age of superannuation, in terms of the

Government Order dated 28.10.2009. Accordingly, all

employees of the University have been demitting their

 - 12 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

Office/Post on attaining the age of 62 years, although,

with no demur.

b) UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications

for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in

Universities and Colleges and Measures for the

Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018

(hereafter called as ‘UGC Regulations’), are promulgated

under the provisions of Sections 14 & 26 of the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereafter

referred to as ‘the UGC Act’). In terms of UGC

recommendation, the Central Government vide order

dated 31.12.2008 extended the benefits of Sixth Central

Pay Commission Recommendation to the “Teachers in

the Central Universities”. In fact, the very Preamble of

the said Order specifically mentions this. One of these

benefits is the enhanced age of retirement i.e., 65 years.

Therefore, these benefits did not extend to the

employees of the State Universities which are different

from the Central ones. A similar order was issued on

 - 13 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

02.11.2017. It does not ipso facto extend to the

employees of the State Universities and therefore, a

committee was constituted to look into the matter. The

Committee at recommendation 12 recommends

enhancement of the age of retirement from 62 years to

65. A recommendation of the kind per se is not

justiciable and therefore no support can be drawn from

the same by the appellant/petitioner, as rightly

contended by the learned Government Advocate and the

Panel Counsel.

c) The vehement contention of the learned

Senior Counsel Laxminarayana that the UGC has

prescribed 65 years as the age of superannuation and

therefore the impugned statute of the University

prescribing 62 years for retirement is liable to be voided,

is bit difficult to countenance. This argument is

structured on a wrong premise that the subject UGC

Regulation and the University Statutes are in conflict with

each other and therefore, the former being the Central

 - 14 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

Law would override the later which is a State Law. True it

is that when the Central Law occupies the a field in

respect of an item in the Concurrent List, the State Law

cannot operate as provided under Article 254 of the

Constitution of India. However, the conflict can logically

arise only if the Central Law is shown to impose a norm,

with the no option whatsoever. That is not the case here.

The UGC Letters dated 30.01.2018 and 31.01.2018

although extend the benefit of 7th Central Pay

Commission Report do not much say about the

enhancement of age of retirement from 62 years to 65 as

being obligatory qua the State Universities of the kind.

When option is given by the Central Law as to the age of

superannuation, it is open to the State Universities to

prescribe the age of retirement for its employees, in

variance. In such a situation the doctrine of occupied

field is not invocable.

d) The above view gains support from the

following observations of the Apex Court in B.Bharat

 - 15 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

Kumar & others Vs. Osmania University & others

(2007)11 SCC 58:

“16. Much debate was centered around

the interpretation of the words ‘wish’ and
‘gamut’. In our opinion it is wholly
unnecessary and we have merely mentioned
the arguments for being rejected. Once the
scheme suggested that it was left to the
“wish” of the Sate Government, there will be
no point in trying to assign the unnatural
meaning to the word ‘wish’. …”

“19. Learned counsel also argued, to a

great extent, the desirability of the age of
superannuation being raised to 60 or 62, as
the case may be. We again reiterate that it is
not for his Court to formulate a policy as to
what the age of retirement should be as by
doing so we would be trailing into the
dangerous area of the wisdom of the
legislation. If the State Government in its
discretion, which is permissible to it under the
scheme, decides to restrict the age and not
increase it to 60, or as the case may be, 62,
it was perfectly justified in doing so.”

“23. Further it is clear from the letter

dated 27-7-1998 that it is expressly left to
the discretion of the State Government to
implement or not to implement the policy.
Once there is no question of any conflict we
do not think that would have the effect of
overruling T.P. George. …”
 - 16 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

The reliance of the appellant/petitioner on the decision of

the Apex Court in Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K,V Jeyaraj

(2015)6 SCC 363 again does not much come to his

support. At paragraph 62.3, 62.4 & 62.5, it is observed

as under:

“62.3. UGC Regulations, 2010 are

mandatory to teachers and other academic
staff in all the Central Universities and
Colleges thereunder and the Institutions
deemed to be Universities whose maintenance
expenditure is met by the UGC.

62.4. UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory

for the Universities, Colleges and other higher
educational institutions under the purview of
the State Legislation as the matter has been
left to the State Government to adopt and
implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC
Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and is
partly directory.

62.5. UGC Regulations, 2010 having not

adopted by the State Tamil Nadu, the question
of conflict between State Legislation and
Statutes framed under Central Legislation
does not arise. Once it is adopted by the State
Government, the State Legislation to be
amended appropriately. In such case also
there shall be no conflict between the State
Legislation and the Central Legislation.”
 - 17 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

We are of the view that these observations far from

supporting the case of the appellant/petitioner, come to

the rescue of the answering respondents.

e) Learned Panel counsel for the University is more

than justified in heavily banking upon a Co-ordinate

Bench decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Dr. R.

Halesha and others, ILR 2012 KAR 545, wherein at

paragraph 15 it is observed as under”

“15. … The UGC has taken the stand

that the subject Directions are not mandatory
so far as the increase of the age of
superannuation to 65 years even in respect of
Teachers in Colleges in the State. This also
obviates and renders superfluous the
interesting and intricate interplay between
entries in the Union List and the Concurrent
List of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India.”

These observations were made in the light of the claim

for enhancement of age of retirement from 62 years to

65 years by the employees of the Universities on the

basis of UGC norms. After said decision, a learned Single

Judge of this Court in more or less a similar fact matrix

 - 18 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

decided another case in W.P. No.103868/2018 between

Dr. P.V. Kenchanagoudar Vs. The Principal

Secretary and another disposed off on 22.06.2018.

The claim of the employees of the State Universities

founded on UGC Regulations and Central Government

Orders came to be negatived. The contention of the

appellant/petitioner that these decisions of the

Co-ordinate Bench and the learned Single Judge were

structured on Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations

and therefore not applicable to a case involving Seventh

Pay Commission Recommendation is bit difficult to

countenance, the differential being irrelevant to the issue

debated before us.

f) The impugned Statute of the University

prescribes the age of 60 years for superannuation of the

employees. Earlier it was 58 years. It is the State

Government which has prescribed the age of 62 years

which the University has adopted. Thus, even if the

impugned Statute is voided on the grounds urged herein,

 - 19 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

no purpose would be served. The fixation of age of

retirement of Public Servants has a bearing on the State

Exchequer and the employment opportunities for others.

We are told at the Bar that there are thousands of

employees in various Universities and in the constituent

& affiliated Colleges. If the prayer, as sought for, is

granted, all these employees would continue in the Office

for an additional period of three years and eventually,

there would be no vacancies for fresh appointments. This

is not desirable. At what age the Public Servants like

teachers in the Universities/constituent colleges should

retire is purely within the domain of the State Executive,

which bears the expenditure towards salary, emoluments

and terminal benefits. In matters like this, a host of

financial & other factors enter the fray of decision making

and Courts cannot readily venture interference therein,

the worth of such factors not being assessable by

judicially manageable standards. The UGC, in its wisdom,

has left to the State Universities to prescribe the age of

superannuation, as already mentioned above. That

 - 20 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

concession if at all that be, is not put in challenge by the

appellant/petitioner. Whether it is prudent to retain old

blood or to infuse fresh one is best left to the wisdom of

the State Executive & the Universities. After all, “Old

order changeth, yielding place to the new and God fulfills

himself in many ways ……..” said Alfred Tennyson (1809-

1892).

g) The learned Single Judge (Hon’be Justice

R.Devdas) having bestowed consideration to all the

material aspects of the case in the right perspective has

rendered the impugned judgment, which cannot be

faltered on the grounds urged before us. The

appellant/petitioner has miserably failed to show that this

judgment is wrong in any way and much less is otherwise

unsustainable. We have not adverted to the decisions

treated by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as we are

in complete agreement with the way he has construed

the ratio thereof.

 - 21 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

h) Lastly, the learned Senior Advocate Mr.

Laxminarayana cited a latest decision of the Apex Court

in W.P. (Civil) No. 1525/2019 between Gambhirdhan

K.Gadhavi V. the State of Gujarat & Ors. decided on

03.03.2022. It related to the appointment of the Vice-

Chancellor to a State University in violation of the extant

UGC Regulations. The material facts of the said Ruling do

not much match with those of the case at hands and

therefore, the appellant/petitioner cannot draw much

milk from the observations made therein. It hardly needs

to be stated that a case is an authority for the

proposition that it lays down in a given fact matrix, and

not for all that which logically follows from what has been

so laid down vide QUINN Vs. LEATHAM (1901) AC 495,

UKHL 2.

In the above circumstances, both the writ appeal

and the writ petition being devoid of merits are liable to

be rejected and accordingly they are, costs having been

made easy.
 - 22 -
WA No.100198/2022
C/w. W.P. No.101937/2022

However, this Judgment shall not come in the way

of the recommendation of the Committee of the

University being expeditiously considered, by the

quarters that be, in accordance with law. It is hoped that

such a consideration would take place without brooking

any delay.

SD/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

Kms & Vnp*