Subsequently, the review petition, filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case was subsequent to the order of the Chancellor and on the date on which that order was made, the proceedings in the criminal case were pending and, therefore, it was supported by proper reasons.
So far as this factual aspect is companycerned, there numbersuch averment in the writ it petition filed by the appellant in the High Court.
The facts which are necessary for the purpose of this judgment are as follows The Governor of Karnataka, who is the Chancellor of the Mysore University, selected the appellant herein, who was Professor in Physics in the University of Mysore to be the Vice Chancellor of the said University while exercising his powers under Section 11 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976.
Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
The appellant challenged the said order in a writ appeal.
An order was passed by him on August 20, 1997 by which he appointed the appellant herein as Vice Chancellor for a period of three years with effect from September 4, 1997.
23086 of 1997.
Consequently, the earlier order of appointment was rescinded by the later order.
The appellant brought it to this Court by way of a special leave petition.
Mr. P P Rao, learned senior companynsel has put forward two companytentions 1 the appellant was entitled to numberice before the order was passed by the Chancellor and 2 the order casts a stigma against the appellant and principles of natural justice required an opportunity to be given to the appellant before such an order was passed.
In the special leave petition the appellant made a submission that in the review petition, filed before the High Court, numberice had been issued and therefore, he won Id withdraw the special leave petition, Consequently, this Court dismissed that special leave petition as withdrawn.
Heard learned companynsel on both sides at length.
That was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred these appeals on special leave against both the original order in the writ appeal and the order on the review petition .
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka which was taken on file as writ Petition No.
The order passed by the Chancellor stated that he was number aware earlier of the pendency of the criminal case as against the appellant herein and that he found it number desirable to appoint the appellant as Vice Chancellor.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The appellant had also filed a review petition in the High Court.
In the writ petition It was companytended by the appellant that in the criminal case he was acquitted later as the charge was found to be unsustainable and that the order of the Chancellor rescinding the earlier order was number valid inasmuch as he had number been given any opportunity to be heard before It.
But on the very next day, i.e. on August 21, 1997, he passed another order referring to a news item which appeared in the Times of India in respect of the appellant herein stating that he had been facing a criminal case and had been named as the Vice Chancellor.
It was companytended that if such an opportunity had been given, the appellant would have brought to the numberice of the Chancellor that in the criminal case the judgment would be pronounced within a few days and would have requested the Chancellor to wait for a few days before passing any order.
