DR. NEEMA GNANADEV vs K T SHANTHALA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1166 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. DR. NEEMA GNANADEV
W/O GNANADEV L
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, 15TH MAIN, 19TH CROSS
PADMANABHANAGAR,
BANGALORE 560070.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.,)
AND:
1. K.T. SHANTHALA
REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BANGALORE 560 056.
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. PRASANNA B.R. ADV.,)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT
RECORDS FROM THE ACCUSED AND INITIATE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS
ACT AND PUNISH HER FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY/ WILLFULLY
DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22871/2023 (S-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 PASSED IN
Digitally
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
R.P.NO.162/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING COSTS IN THE ABOVE
PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Smt. K.T. Shantala, wife of Mr. Vishal Narayan, the sole
accused, who is the Registrar of the Bengaluru University is
present in Court, pursuant to the previous order.
2. This petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the
order dated 12.02.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.22871/2023 (S-RES) and also the order dated 15.07.2025
passed in Review Petition No.162/2024.
3. The aforesaid petition was filed by the complainant
challenging the order dated 30.01.2023 by the Bengaluru
University, by which the appointment of the complainant for the
post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Center for
Rural Development Studies, Bengaluru University, was
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
cancelled. The appointment was cancelled for want of Validity
Certificate to substantiate her appointment for the post
reserved under the Scheduled Tribes Category. The petitioner
had furnished the documents before the Committee and was
able to secure a Validity Certificate, which was communicated
by the Committee to the University. Thereafter, an
endorsement dated 16.08.2023 was issued rejecting the
representation of the complainant on the ground that there was
no provision to reinstate the complainant to the post of
Assistant Professor in the University.
4. This Court in the writ petition observed that, some
leniency was required to be exercised by the University and
the endorsement could not have been issued on the ground
that there is no provision to reinstate into service. The
appointment was cancelled not on account of her ineligibility,
but, on the ground that she failed to secure a Validity
Certificate in time. This Court held that the mere/main fact
that the Validity Certificate was not secured within time would
not in itself constitute a ground to deny employment to a lady
coming from depressed class. Accordingly, the cancellation of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
appointment and the consequent order declining to reinstate
the petitioner were held to be not sustainable and accordingly
they were quashed. The Respondent-University was directed to
expedite the administrative process and reinstate the
complainant into service without any further delay. The
respondent-University was also directed to extend the benefit
of continuity of service with monetary and all other academic
benefits excluding the arrears of salary.
5. The contempt which is alleged in the petition is that,
despite the order of the learned Single Judge which has
attained finality, the accused has not declared the probationary
period of the complainant despite lapse of more than one and
half years since the order of the writ Court was passed.
6. We have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of the
accused. The primary ground of defense taken by the accused
is on the aspect of probation, which states that as per the
Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1997, there is a
declaration of satisfactory completion of the period of probation
required to be made by the University.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
7. The learned counsel for the accused states that the
Syndicate of the University has to take a decision in the matter
of such declaration. It is stated that the petitioner continues to
be under probation and there is no presumption of satisfactory
completion of the probation unless a specific order to that
effect is passed. If there is a delay in issue of an order, the
same shall not entitle the probationer to be deemed to have
satisfactorily completed her probation.
8. It is also stated that some disciplinary proceeding is
pending against the complainant and an enquiry is under-way.
Attention has been drawn to Paragraph No.12 of the affidavit
filed on 13.10.2026, in which it is stated that a Memorandum,
Article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct
had been prepared and placed before the Syndicate for
approval of the same, which has been approved by the
Syndicate in its meeting on 29.06.2026. The fact remains that
as per the provisions of Rule-5 of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Probation) Rules, 1977, there is no automatic satisfactory
completion of the probation. The provision of Rule-5 reads as
under:-
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
5. Declaration of satisfactory completion of
probation etc . – (1) At the end of the prescribed or, as the
case may be the reduced or extended period of probation,
the appointing authority shall consider the suitability of the
probationer hold the post to which he was appointed, and -
(a) if it decides that the probationer is suitable to the
post of which he was appointed and has passed
the special examinations or tests, if any, required
to be passed during the period of probation it
shall, as soon as possible issue order declaring
the probationer to have satisfactorily completed
his probation and such an order shall have
effected the date of expiry of the prescribed,
reduced or extend period of probation;
(b) if the appointing authority decides that the
probationer is not suitable to hold the post to
which he was appointed or has not passed the
special examinations or special tests, if any,
required to be passed during the period of
probation, it shall, unless the period of probation
is extend under the rule 4, by order, discharge
him from service.
(2) A probationer shall not be considered to have
satisfactorily completed the provisions unless a specific
order to that effect is passed. Any delay in the issue of
an order under sub-rule (1) shall not entitle to, the
probationer to be deemed to have satisfactorily
completed his probation. Note:- In this rule and rule 6
discharge in the case of a probationer appointed from
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58401-DB
CCC No.1166 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010590992025
another service or post, means reversion to that service
or post.
9. The petitioner has evidently been reinstated into
service as Associate Professor. She is being granted the benefit
of salary and is availing monetary benefits and other academic
benefits. There is no averment in the petition to demonstrate
that academic benefits to which a probationer is entitled to, has
not been granted to the complainant.
10. In this view of the matter, the accused has
successfully demonstrated that there is no willful disobedience
of the order of the writ Court or the order passed in Review
Petition.
11. The accused is discharged and this petition is
consigned.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
KGR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52