Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2493 (ALL)

K. Ragupathi v. State Of U. P.

2018-12-07

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, JAYANT BANERJI

body2018
ORDER : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. 1. The petitioner is appearing in person and is seeking a writ in the nature of qua warranto to the respondents no.5, 6 and 7 to show cause by what right they are holding an independent substantive public statutory offices of Registrar, Vice Chancellor and Finance Officer respectively. 2. The petitioner states that he is an independent legal researcher and public spirited person and was residing in House No.D-2, Type-V, Faculty Housing, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. until 28.04.2018 when he and his family members were forcibly evicted from the said quarter by the Respondent-University. He states that he was removed from the post of Senior Scientific Officer by the Respondent-University challenging which he filed Writ Petition (C) No.51962 of 2014 which is stated to be still pending in the High Court. It is stated that he had earlier filed a Writ Petition (C) No.63625 of 2014 seeking a writ of quo warranto for the removal of Dr. J.P. Sharma, a retired IAS Officer from the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University which was dismissed by this Court, against which he filed Special Leave Petition being Diary No.10128 of 2016 in the Supreme Court of India. It is further stated that he has filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.54883 of 2014 seeking writ of quo warranto for the removal of Mr. Pushyapati Saxena from the post of Registrar of the Respondent-University but that writ petition had become infructuous after Pushyapati Saxena had been transferred from the post of Registrar by the State Government. 3. It is stated that the respondent no.5, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh is a serving Provincial Administrative Service Officer under the State of U.P. who has been appointed as Registrar of the University. The respondent no.6, Dr. Prabhat Kumar is a serving Indian Administrative Officer of 1985 batch and is holding the post of Educational Commissioner as well as Chairman, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority but he has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. The respondent no.7, Mr. P.S. Chaudhary, is an Officer of the State Government but has been appointed as the Finance Officer of the Respondent-University. It is stated that the respondent no.5 joined as Registrar of the University on 19.07.2017. The respondent no.6 joined as Vice-Chancellor of the University on 14.09.2017. 4. The respondent no.7, Mr. P.S. Chaudhary, is an Officer of the State Government but has been appointed as the Finance Officer of the Respondent-University. It is stated that the respondent no.5 joined as Registrar of the University on 19.07.2017. The respondent no.6 joined as Vice-Chancellor of the University on 14.09.2017. 4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent no.6 is not a person eminent in academics but he is a serving IAS Officer of the State and does not possess any of the eligibility qualifications for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University. It is also alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that the respondent no.6 has regularized the services of 48 non-teaching employees without following the procedure prescribed and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 5. The petitioner further states that he has filed an application dated 17.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the office of the Chief Minister with regard to the appointments and selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Finance Officer of the Respondent-University and has also submitted a similar application dated 18.04.2018 regarding the regularization of the services of the 48 non-teaching employees of the University but his applications were ignored. 6. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition the petitioner has doubted the personal integrity of the respondents no.5, 6 and 7 as his family was illegally and forcibly evicted from the peaceful possession of the house on 28.04.2018 without following due procedure and principles of natural justice. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. In paragraph 4 thereof it has been stated that though the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.63625 of 2014 praying for removal of Dr. J.P. Sharma the then Vice-Chancellor of the Gautam Buddha University but he has not disclosed that the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. High Court also imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner. Even on merit this Court held that there was no infirmity of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University. 8. High Court also imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner. Even on merit this Court held that there was no infirmity of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent-University. 8. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is also stated that though the petitioner had filed Special Leave Petition bearing Diary No.10128 of 2016 but the same was defective and even after two years the petitioner has not cured the defects with the result that the said Special Leave Petition has neither been given a regular number nor has it come up before the Court on the judicial side. The petitioner has also not disclosed the fate of the SLP as of today. It is also stated that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.51962 of 2014 challenging the non-extension of his services as Senior Scientific Officer in the Respondent-University but the said writ petition stands dismissed by the order dated 23.05.2018. 9. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that even-after non-extension of his services the petitioner continued to retain the official quarter allotted to him without paying the water and electricity charges. He was issued several notices from time to time demanding that he vacate the premises but he did not vacate the premises. Ultimately a final letter was issued to him on 24.04.2018 requiring him to deposit the amount of Rs.11,74,317/-towards retention of official accommodation beyond the permissible period and initiation of eviction proceedings. Even-thereafter when the petitioner did not vacate the premises he had to be forcibly evicted and all his belongings were inventorised and kept in a garage under lock and key with proper seal. It is therefore stated that the present writ petition is a fall out of the eviction of the petitioner from his quarter in the University since this writ petition was sworn on 14.05.2018 for filing in the High Court i.e. within one month of issuance of the final notice dated 24.04.2018 to the petitioner. 10. So far as the appointment of the Registrar and Finance Officer are concerned, it is stated that the said appointments have been made under Sections 13 and 14 of the Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002). 11. 10. So far as the appointment of the Registrar and Finance Officer are concerned, it is stated that the said appointments have been made under Sections 13 and 14 of the Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002). 11. So far as the appointment of the respondent no.6 as Vice-Chancellor is concerned, it is stated that the said appointment is in an officiating capacity till such time as the regular incumbent is selected and joins the post. 12. It is stated that 3 advertisements have been issued over the last one year inviting applications to select best possible candidates for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University and to manage the affairs of the University. Till such a candidate is available the respondent no.6 has been appointed in an officiating capacity. It is also stated that the regularization of 48 non-teaching employees was done strictly after following the due procedure of law. 13. We have heard Sri K. Ragupati, the petitioner in person and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner in paragraph 5 states that the Writ Court while deciding Writ Petition No.63625 of 2014 had never doubted the locus of the petitioner and therefore cost was imposed in ignorance of the settled legal position. 15. What emerges from the averments and the allegations made in the writ petition is that the petitioner is smarting under the notice of eviction from his quarter in the University as well as his actual eviction therefrom and removal of all his belongings from the said quarter. He also seems to be smarting under the act of the respondents in the non-extension of his services as Senior Scientific Officer though the Writ Petition No.51952 of 2016 challenging the non-extension of his service was ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 23.05.2018 and therefore the averments in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the Writ Petition No.51962 of 2014 is still pending is a false averment to misleading the Court. The order of the Division Bench of the Court in Writ Petition No.51962 of 2014, dated 23.05.2018 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of the Respondent-University. The order of the Division Bench of the Court in Writ Petition No.51962 of 2014, dated 23.05.2018 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of the Respondent-University. So far as the Special Leave Petition Diary No.10128 of 2016 stated to have been filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Writ Court dated 26.11.2014 dismissing the Writ Petition No.63625 of 2014, the petitioner has himself admitted in paragraph 7 of his rejoinder affidavit that the said SLP was dismissed on 13.07.2018 on grounds of limitation. Though he also states that the order of the Supreme Court dated 13.07.2018 was not relevant in the present case and therefore it was not necessary to be filed in the present writ petition. 16. In view of the averments of the rejoinder affidavit we find that the petitioner is under a misconception that when he has referred to certain writ petitions and orders he is not required to disclose to the Court the finality of those proceedings and the orders passed which is also a deliberate concealment of facts from this Court. 17. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations made by another Bench of this Court in Writ (A) No.63625 of 2014 filed by the petitioner:- “Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the petitioner was earlier engaged on contract basis in the University as a Senior Scientific Officer in 2011 for a period of two years, which period was extended and it came to end on 11 August 2014 after which it has not been extended. It is their submission that this petition has been filed as the term of engagement of the petitioner as Senior Scientific Officer was not extended and when the notice dated 29 October 2014 was issued to the petitioner to vacate the house that had been provided to him while he was engaged on contract basis in the University. On a query being put to the petitioner, who has appeared in person as to why such disclosure was not made in the writ petition, all that is stated is that it was not necessary to do so since the petitioner is no more in the service of the University. We do not find this explanation to be plausible. On a query being put to the petitioner, who has appeared in person as to why such disclosure was not made in the writ petition, all that is stated is that it was not necessary to do so since the petitioner is no more in the service of the University. We do not find this explanation to be plausible. The petitioner was engaged by the University on contract basis in 2011 and has worked in the University for about three and half years. If the petitioner had any genuine grievance regarding the eligibility of the Vice-Chancellor, he should have raised this objection at that point of time but it appears that it is only when his engagement was not extended by the University after August 2014 that the petitioner has filed this petition to question the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands. What is important to note is that the petitioner has specifically stated that this petition has not been filed out of any personal vendetta but this is not true. A person should approach a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. This is what has been observed by the Supreme Court in The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852 and K.P. Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 620 . In Nooruddin Vs. Dr. K.L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242 , the Supreme Court also observed: "..............Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice." In Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 ; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 ; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 271 , the Supreme Court held that filing of petitions containing misleading and inaccurate statement to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. In Agriculture & Process Food Products Vs. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 271 , the Supreme Court held that filing of petitions containing misleading and inaccurate statement to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly. In Agriculture & Process Food Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947 the Supreme Court took serious objections in a case which was filed by suppressing material facts and it was held that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. It was also observed that a litigant was bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts". This petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for this reason.” 18. We find that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.54883 of 2014 seeking writ of quo warranto for removal of Mr. Pushyapati Saxena from the post of Registrar of the University which was withdrawn by him as the said gentleman has been transferred by the State Government. This shows that the petitioner is a chronic litigant. Even though the petitioner has vehemently challenged the appointment of the respondents no.5 to 7 but he has not been able to show as to how the appointments of respondent no.5, who is the Registrar and the respondent no.7, who is the Finance Officer are illegal. The appointments of the Registrar and the Finance officer have been made under the provisions of the Act, 2002. What is the defect in these appointments has not been disclosed in the writ petition. No rules and regulations have been referred to nor placed before the Court to show what was the error in the appointments of the respondents no.5 and 7. 19. So far as the appointment of the respondent no.6 as Vice-Chancellor of the University is concerned, the respondents have themselves disclosed that the appointment of the respondent no.6, Prabhat Kumar is only in an officiating capacity till such time as a regular incumbent is selected and joins the post. In our opinion, the office of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be kept vacant otherwise the entire administrative and teaching work of the University would stand to suffer and ultimately cause loss to the innocent students of the University. In our opinion, the office of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be kept vacant otherwise the entire administrative and teaching work of the University would stand to suffer and ultimately cause loss to the innocent students of the University. It has also been disclosed that in the last one year 3 advertisements have been published inviting applications for selection of the best possible candidates for the post of Vice-Chancellor. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the appointments of the respondents no.5, 6 and 7. 20. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has made wild allegations that the appointments in the University are being made in an opaque manner, without maintaining transparency and none of the orders relating to these appointments were ever communicated to the petitioner by the University. 21. We fail to see as to how and why orders relating to various appointments in the University should have been communicated to the petitioner. So far as the appointments of respondents no.5, 6 and 7 are concerned, in the rejoinder affidavit only wild allegations have been made that such appointments have not been made as per Rules. 22. The petitioner has referred to the UGC Regulations, 2010 as amended from time to time in 2013 with regard to the appointment on the post of Vice-Chancellor but as we have already noted above the respondents themselves have admitted that the current appointee is only an officiating appointee till such time a regularly selected candidate becomes available. The petitioner has also laid much stress upon the alleged illegality in the eviction from the official quarter and also the illegality in the appointment of 48 non-teaching employees but these matters are not under challenge in the writ petition therefore we are not required to go into those questions. 23. We, therefore do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- considering the fact that this writ petition has been filed on concealment of material facts already noted hereinabove and that the petitioner has raised issues which have absolutely no relevance to the appointments of the respondents no.5, 6 and 7. 24. The amount of Rs.5,000/-shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within two months from today. 24. The amount of Rs.5,000/-shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court within two months from today. If the same is not so deposited the Registrar General shall take steps for recovery of the same from the petitioner in accordance with law as arrears of land revenue. The amount so deposited shall then be transmitted to the account of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Registrar General of this Court for information.