In order to invoke the writ of quo warranto, the Karnataka High Court ruled that lecturers, assistant professors, and associate professors have a legal connection with the university and that their position cannot be classified as a “public office” because they do not perform any public functions. When a public official fails to meet eligibility requirements or when their appointment violates the law, a writ of quo warranto may be issued.

“A professor or associate professor has no public duties to perform. A professor or associate professor does not engage in public interactions or carry out their tasks in a public setting. Both the general definition of public office and the specific definition of quo warranto assume that a position or office has obvious public characteristics. It must be a position or office where the occupant is involved in public tasks. Traveling to the public domain should be the order of office’s functional realm. Teachers, professors, and readers cannot all be treated in the same way.”

The panel made this ruling while rejecting a plea to remove Dr. M Shivashankar from his Associate Professor position at Bangalore University on the grounds that he lacked the necessary qualifications. The petitioners claimed that Dr. Shivashankar had usurped the public office by accepting the position. Dr. Shivashankar stated that his evaluation was completed correctly and that he was appointed to the position following confirmation that he met UGC requirements. In addition, the University submitted a response justifying his appointment.

The Court noted right away that a citizen must first convince the court that the office in question is a public office held by a usurper without legal authority before he may request a writ of quo warranto. It further emphasized that the petitioner’s locus standi must be untarnished and that he must meet the “stricter standard” of a legitimate claimant. Furthermore, the petitioner should not have any kind of private motivations for requesting a writ of quo warranto.

He should make sure he is totally shielded from personal considerations as a fact-relator as well. It goes without saying that quo warranto ought to be denied in cases where it results from malice or ill will. Even yet, locus can only be claimed by someone who appears in court legitimately and with a legitimate public purpose.

The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, Section 11, which provides a list of the university’s officers, was then cited by the court. It remained Even though responder No. 5 is an Associate Professor or Professor, he is considered a University employee for all purposes, including functional ones. Additionally, it stated that respondent No. 5’s position as an Associate Professor is not a public office. In this instance, the requirement for issuing a writ of quo warranto is not met. According to this perspective, there is no need to consider any other component of merit because no benefit can be given based only on this score. Thus, the court has not addressed any more merit-related issues.

The court stated that the aforementioned dimension of the subject matter controversy inevitably goes to show that the petitioners had various axes to grind in filing this petition, styling it as an action in the public interest to seek the quo warranto writ with the intent to oust respondent No. 5 in order to satisfy personal score, based on Dr. Shivashankar’s claims in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioners filed the petition with personal and professional vengeance. That perspective concludes that the petition is a misuse of the legal system. The petitioners ought to pay a nominal fee of Rs. 7,500.