Karnataka High Court questions CUK recruitment process

CH NEWS, KALABURAGI The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has expressed concern over the functioning of the Central University of Karnataka (CUK), located at Kadaganchi in Aland taluk, while hearing a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Assistant Registrar/Public Relations Officer (PRO). During the hearing, the single-judge Bench of Justice Vijaykumar Patil observed that all does not appear to be well at the university and directed the university to submit records detailing the action taken on a letter written by the State Chief Secretary. The petition was filed by Dattatreya, who alleged that the candidate appointed to the post had failed to meet the eligibility criteria prescribed by the university. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate P. Vilas Kumar submitted that the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary of the Higher Education Department, both members of the university's Executive Council, had reportedly recorded their dissent regarding the PRO recruitment process. Despite these objections, the university allegedly issued the appointment order in haste, prompting the petitioner to seek an interim stay on the appointment. After hearing the submissions, Justice Patil questioned the university's counsel, Sudarshan, about the steps taken in response to the Chief Secretary's communication and directed the university to produce the relevant documents. However, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the appointment. The Bench also raised questions about discrepancies in the names of newspapers mentioned in documents submitted by the appointed candidate. According to the court, the candidate had reportedly mentioned one newspaper in the application and a different publication in an affidavit filed before the court. The affidavit submitted by the Registrar also reportedly contained different newspaper names. Rejecting this contention, the Bench observed that there was no requirement for a candidate to challenge alleged irregularities only during the recruitment period and that such a challenge could be raised subsequently. The court adjourned the hearing to October 16, directing the university to place the relevant records before it.