Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 754 (GAU)

RAJENDRA NATH BORPUZARI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-08-11

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 25.1.2016 passed by the learned single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellants’ WP(C) No. 3776/2014. 3. The appellants are Faculty Members in the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat. Respondent No.10 is Vice Chancellor of that University. As the initial 5 years tenure of Respondent No.10 was coming to an end on 26.7.2014, the Chancellor, vide notification dated 19.5.2014, constituted a Three Member Committee for the purpose of appointing new Vice Chancellor. The Committee was entrusted with the responsibility of recommending a panel of three persons for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. An advertisement was, therefore, issued by the Chairman of the Committee on 27.6.2014. The appellants filed WP(C) No. 3483/2014 and prayed for setting aside the advertisement dated 27.6.2014. The appellants had prayed for a direction against the authorities to issue fresh advertisement giving wide publicity. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.7.2014 as premature. It was also observed that the appellants could offer their candidature for the post of Vice Chancellor. 4. But the appellants admittedly did not offer their candidature for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor. 5. It is the case of the appellants that Respondent No.10 has committed large scale irregularities and illegalities and therefore, his re-appointment as Vice Chancellor was bad in law. According to the appellants, Respondent No.10 had obliged the then Chief Minister by conferring him Honorary Degree of Ph.D, who, in turn, has illegally ensured his re-appointment of Respondent No.10 as Vice Chancellor. 6. The Registrar of the University as well as Respondent No.10 in reply asserted that the appellants have always entered into the activities against the interest of University. Instances have also been given to show that the appellants have been censored and warned for their activities. The Respondents categorically averred that re-appointment of Respondent No.10 as Vice Chancellor has been done on merit and strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the allegations and counter allegations made in the petition as well as the procedure prescribed for reappointment of Vice Chancellor, has held that re-appointment of Respondent No.10 as Vice Chancellor has been made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. 7. The learned Single Judge, after considering the allegations and counter allegations made in the petition as well as the procedure prescribed for reappointment of Vice Chancellor, has held that re-appointment of Respondent No.10 as Vice Chancellor has been made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. The learned Single Judge has also held that the appellants failed to produce any material to establish that Respondent No.10 had committed financial irregularities or that he has been favoured by the Chief Minister, because of conferment of Honorary Degree of PH.D. The learned Single Judge has dealt with each and every issue raised by the appellants in detail with which we fully agree and do not intend to reiterate in our order. 8. The record also reveals that appellants are more into confrontation and litigations than academic activities of the University. They have earlier also been warned by the University for indulging into activities not befitting to the post. As seen above, the appellants did not offer their candidature for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor. Although, the last date for submitting applications was 15th July, 2014, the University, in all fairness, offered the appellants time to submit their applications upto 30th July, 2014. Even then, they decided not to offer their candidature. We therefore fail to see what statutory or legal right they intend to enforce in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They, having decided not to offer their candidature, cannot be permitted to meddle with the selection and appointment of Respondent No.10 to the post of Vice Chancellor. We find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same summarily, with costs of Rs.5000/- each which shall be payable to the University. The appellants shall deposit the costs within one month with the Registrar of the University, failing which, the amount shall be recovered through their salaries.