STATE OF KARNATAKA, vs DR. KESHAVAMURTHY.T.,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2026 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
TH
M.S. BUILDING, 6
BENGALURU 560 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
AND:
1. DR. KESHAVAMURTHY.T.,
S/O B.V THIMMEGOWDA.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
PHYSICAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
(A CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY),
HAMPANAKATTA,
MANGALURU -575 001.
Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
REP. BY REGISTRAR,
MANGALA GANGOTHRI,
KONAJE
MANGALURU-574 199.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
3. PRINCIPAL,
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
(A CONSTITUENT COLLEGE OF
MANGALURU UNIVERSITY) HAMPANAKATTA
MANGALURU-575 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 04/04/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.15808/2024 AND B)
ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER/DIRECTIONS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.15808/2024 (S-RES) dated 04.04.2025, the present
intra-court appeal has been filed by the State. The petitioner's
claim for extension of his retirement age from 60 to 62 years is
under challenge in this appeal.
2. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as
per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
I. Facts of the writ petitioner:
3. The writ petitioner, Dr.Keshavamurthy T., was
appointed as Physical Cultural Instructor by Mangalore
University under Official Memorandum dated 24.07.1996 and
was initially posted to Field Marshal K.M.Cariappa College,
Madikeri. He obtained a Ph.D. in Physical Education in the year
2009 and contended that, apart from his duties as Physical
Education Director, he had been discharging academic
responsibilities by taking theory and practical classes for
B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. students during the academic years 2015-
16 and 2016-17. The University recognised him as a Research
Guide by its letter dated 12.06.2015, followed by an Official
Memorandum dated 25.04.2016 provisionally admitting
research candidates under his guideship. By Official
Memorandum dated 07.04.2017, his pay was fixed in the UGC
pay scale of Rs.37,400–67,000/- with AGP of Rs.9,000/- and he
was re-designated as Deputy Director of Physical Education
with effect from 31.07.2010. He further relied upon the
Government Orders dated 17.11.1997 and 20.12.1997, the
UGC communication dated 19.10.2006 and the State
Government Order dated 15.10.2009, contending that Physical
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
Education personnel had been recognised as teachers and were
consequently entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation of
62 years. He was promoted as College Director of Physical
Education and Sports in Academic Level 14 with effect from
20.09.2021, as communicated on 17.06.2023. However, the
Government Order dated 28.09.2015 treated Physical
Education Directors drawing UGC pay scales as a category not
entitled to the enhanced retirement age. Thereafter, by Official
Memorandum dated 30.04.2024, he was informed that he
would retire on 30.06.2024, on attaining the age of 60 years.
Aggrieved by the said decision, he instituted W.P.
No.15808/2024 (S-RES), seeking to challenge the Government
Order dated 28.09.2015 and the consequential notification
dated 30.04.2024, and for a direction to continue him in service
till he attained the age of 62 years.
II. Order passed in the writ petition:
4. The learned Single Judge, by order dated
04.04.2025, allowed the writ petition by following the decisions
of the coordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.Nos.441-
443/2017 and W.P.No.12467/2017, wherein the Government
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
Order dated 28.09.2015 and the consequential action taken
thereunder had been interfered with in respect of the
petitioners therein. Holding that the issue raised was covered
by the said decisions, the learned Single Judge set aside the
Government Order bearing No. ED 254 UNE 2014 dated
28.09.2015 and the consequential notification dated
30.04.2024, insofar as they related to the writ petitioner, and
directed that he be continued in service till he attained the age
of superannuation of 62 years. Aggrieved by the order passed
by the writ court, the petitioners have preferred the present
intra-court appeal.
III. Grounds of appeal:
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2025, the State
Government has preferred the present writ appeal contending
that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the distinction
between regular teaching faculty appointed against sanctioned
teaching posts and Physical Education Directors, whose
appointment, cadre and service conditions are governed by a
different framework. It is contended that the Government
Order dated 15.10.2009 enhanced the age of superannuation
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
from 60 to 62 years only in respect of the specified teaching
community drawing UGC scales and did not extend the benefit
to all categories of employees working in universities and
constituent colleges. The State further relies upon Rule 95 of
the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and the Government Order
dated 28.09.2015 to contend that the respondent was required
to retire on attaining 60 years of age. The appellants also
contend that the learned Single Judge extended the benefit of
enhanced superannuation merely on the basis of parity, without
examining the nature of the respondent’s post and duties, and
failed to consider the binding decision of the Division Bench in
W.A.No.5670/2011 and connected matters ( State of
Karnataka -vs- Dr.R.Halesha ), which was upheld by the
Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of
1
Bihar . It is their further case that the enhancement of
retirement age is a matter of State policy, that the UGC
recommendations do not operate automatically in the absence
of a conscious decision by the State, and that extending the
benefit to the respondent would have wider financial and
1
Civil Appeal Nos.5527-5543/2013
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
administrative consequences. On these grounds, the State
seeks setting aside of the order under appeal.
6. We have heard Sri.M.N.Sudev, learned AGA for the
appellant/State. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the
records placed before this Court and the submissions advanced
on behalf of the petitioner the following question arises for our
consideration:
Whether the appellant/respondent No.1 has made
out any ground warranting interference with the
order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.15808/2024 (S-RES)?
IV. REASONS AND CONCLUSION:
7. We have considered the submissions and the
grounds urged by the State and the material placed on record.
The issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the
principles laid down P.C.Modi -vs- Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa
2
Vidyalaya and Another and P.S.Ramamohana Rao -vs-
3
A.P.Agricultural University and Another . In view of the
law laid down in the said decisions, and the consistent view
2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1664
3
(1997) 8 SCC 350
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60536-DB
WA No. 2095 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010631932026
taken by this Court in respect of the entitlement of Physical
Education Directors, we find no ground to take a different view.
The learned Single Judge has rightly applied the said legal
position to the facts of the case. We, therefore, find no
justifiable reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
8. Though the matter is listed in 'fresh matter', in view
of the judgment of the Supreme Court, we do not find any valid
reason to issue notice to the respondents and proceeded to
dispose of the appeal at this stage itself.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
The order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.15808/2024 (S-RES) dated 04.04.2025 is hereby affirmed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5