Karnataka: The professor with two names

Bengaluru: The director of Academy of Sanskrit Research at Melkote landed in the dock for having two names and the matter even figured recently in the high court! M.A. Lakshmithathchar, a professor, had approached the high court challenging the actions taken by the Prof N. Venkatachar as the Director, in two names.

“In the appointment order the name of the professor is N. Venkatachar, whereas some documents state that the name of the director is Prof. Bhasyam Swamy,” the petitioner said while pointed out that in some of the documents the name of the appointed director is shown as N.Venkatachar, while in the other it has been shown as Bhasyam Swamy. Hence Lakshmithathchar contended that the action taken with regard to director were not sustainable.

The petitioner had complained to the Registrar under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, since the Academy is registered under the said provisions. However, the competent authority had said that the enquiry, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be held as he had no authority to do so. Hence Lakshmithathchar had approached the high court challenging the action of the director.

The Director clarified that though his name was N.Venkatachar, he has later applied to the Sanskrit College, where he had undertaken his course and had secured change of name as Bhasyam Swamy. He further made it clear to the court indicating that the person, who approached the court challenging his actions as the director on the ground of ‘two names,’ is in fact was aware that he was known as Bhasyam Swamy as far back as in 2000.

“Though the advocate for the petitioner contends that he has taken up the issue to point out that same person is being shown in two different names in two different documents, in any event, the Education Department has issued the Notification dated May 5, 2007 clarifying the position that N.Venkatachar is also known as Bhasyam Swamy. If that be the position, the said notification would ratify all actions, which would be sufficient and the grievance of the petitioner would not survive. In that view, the petition being devoid of merits, stands disposed off,” court ordered.