JUDGMENT : 1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, humbly prayed on behalf of petitioner that this writ petition for Public Interest Litigation may kindly be allowed and a. by an appropriate, writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to appointment of the respondent no. 5 upon the post of Vice Chancellor of the Bikaner Technical University Bikaner may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and against the provision of Section 11 of the Act of 2017. b. by an appropriate, writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the order dated 30.4.2021 (Annex-3) issued by Hon’ble Governor of State of Rajasthan Cum Chancellor of the Bikaner Technical University Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside. The post of the Vice Chancellor of the Bikaner Technical University Bikaner may kindly be declared vacate and the respondent no. 5 may kindly be removed according to the provision of section 11(A) of the Act of 2017. c. by an appropriate, writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the Director General of Police may kindly be directed to conduct the investigation upon the complaints of the petitioner made against the act and conduct of the respondent no. 5 with regard to prepare a false and fabricated document for appointment of the post of Vice-Chancellor. d. That any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, by which the petitioner may get full just may also be allowed.” 2. The petitioner is a resident of Hanumangarh District and has preferred this PIL petition, laying challenge to the appointment of respondents no. 5 as Vice Chancellor of respondent-Bikaner Technical University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’). 2.1. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no. 4-Registrar, Bikaner Technical University issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Vice Chancellor, whereafter, the Hon’ble Governor of Rajasthan (Chancellor of the University) vide order dated 30.04.2021 appointed the respondent no. 5-Dr. Ambrish Saran Vidhyarthi as Vice Chancellor of the University. 2.2. Thereafter, as soon as the petitioner came to know about the conduct of the respondents and that the respondent no. 5-Dr. Ambrish Saran Vidhyarthi as Vice Chancellor of the University. 2.2. Thereafter, as soon as the petitioner came to know about the conduct of the respondents and that the respondent no. 5 was not qualified for the post in question, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation through E-mails to the concerned authority on various occasions seeking removal of the respondent no. 5 from the post in question, but all such efforts of the petitioner went in vain. Thus, being aggrieved thereby, the present PIL petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 5 is ineligible to hold the post of Vice chancellor of the University, in view of Section 11 of the Bikaner Technical University Act, 2017, which provides that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as Vice Chancellor unless he/she is having, in the field of technical education, an experience for a minimum period of 10 years as Professor in the University or College or 10 years experience of holding an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization; but the respondent no. 5 is having lesser experience than required under the law; the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 also speaks about minimum 10 years experience for appointment on the post in question, and therefore, the appointment of the respondent no. 5 on the post in question is not justified in law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of the respondent no. 5 is also not good because allegations regarding certain administrative and financial irregularities have been levelled against him. It was also submitted that a criminal case has also been registered against the respondent no. 5 under Section 409 of the IPC. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent no. 5, even after the appointment in question has been working against the interest of the University and with dishonesty, further regarding the same, a report has been submitted by the Registrar of the University to the Principal Secretary of the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan on 25.03.2022. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S Vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7634-7635 of 2022, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 21.10.2022) (b) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari Vs. Ravindra Jugran & Ors. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (a) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S Vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7634-7635 of 2022, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 21.10.2022) (b) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari Vs. Ravindra Jugran & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.11.2022) (c) Professor K.B. Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. (PIL) Writ Petition No. 5789/2020, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 24.02.2023) (d) Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Writ petition (S/B) No. 567 of 2021, decided by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand on 05.07.2023) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondent no. 5 was appointed as Vice Chancellor after considering all the required documents including Joining report, Relieving Letter, Vigilance NOC from the previous employer, and therefore, no irregularity was committed in appointing respondent no. 5 on the post in question. 4.1. It was further submitted that a two-member committee was constituted by the Hon’ble Governor in regard to the appointment in question and the said Committee after due inquiry, did not find any irregularity on the part of the respondent in making the appointment in question in favour of the respondent no. 5, and the same was recorded by this Hon’ble Court in the previous orders dated 24.05.2023, 08.08.2023 and 17.10.2023. 4.2. It was further submitted that on previous occasions also, the matter has been heard at length, and thus, now nothing remains to be adjudicated, except the issue regarding imposition of cost upon the petitioner, as observed by this Hon’ble Court on 08.08.2023. It was also submitted that as per the inquiry report of the Committee, the respondent no. 5 is eligible to hold the post in question and the intention of the petitioner by way of this PIL petition is only to harass the respondent no. 5. 4.3. It was also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has also been exonerated, from the allegation levelled against him, by the two-members Committee, upon due inquiry, and therefore, the present PIL petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. 5. 4.3. It was also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has also been exonerated, from the allegation levelled against him, by the two-members Committee, upon due inquiry, and therefore, the present PIL petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner in this PIL petition is challenging the appointment of the respondent no. 5 on the post of Vice Chancellor of the University. This Court further observes that the petitioner relied upon the representation/report dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-20) written by the Registrar of the Bikaner Technical University to the respondent-State regarding the irregularities committed by the respondent no. 5 while holding the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. Thereafter, the State Government constituted a two-member Committee and the said committee has opined in its report in favour of the respondent no. 5. 7. This Court further observes that all the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the previous orders, and the only aspect relating to cost to be imposed upon the petitioner is under consideration. 7.1. On the previous occasion i.e. 06.10.2023, the Committee report was furnished before the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court for perusal in a sealed envelope, and in the said report, while recording exoneration of the respondent no. 5, it was observed that the complaint filed against the respondent no. 5 was without any basis. The said order dated 06.10.2023 is reproduced as hereunder: “Mr. Manish Vyas, learned AAG has furnished report of the Committee in a sealed envelope. We have perused the report, wherein the Committee has completely exonerated respondent No. 5 while observing that the complaint filed by Mr. Narendra Kumar Thori is without any basis and the same is filed with the intention to malign the image of respondent No. 5. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has also raised question with regard to eligibility of the respondent No. 5 for his appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university. He prays for some time to address the Court on the above issue. List on 17th October, 2023. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has also raised question with regard to eligibility of the respondent No. 5 for his appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university. He prays for some time to address the Court on the above issue. List on 17th October, 2023. The report of the Committee shall be placed in a sealed envelope along with record of the instant writ petition.” 8. The Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed another order dated 17.10.2023, clearly observing that the instant case, owing to the previous orders, needs to be considered only on the aspect of imposition of the cost upon the petitioner. The said order dated 17.10.2023 is also reproduced as hereunder: “1. On 24.05.2023, following order was passed: “Notices upon the respondents have duly been served. Replies to the writ petition have been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State and respondent No. 4- Registrar, Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Vice Chancellor in the Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner. The petitioner has relied upon the representation/report dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-20) written by the then Registrar of the Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner to the respondent No. 1–State mentioning several irregularities in the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Vice Chancellor in that university and also regarding the irregularities committed by respondent No. 5 while working as Vice Chancellor. As per the petitioner, no cognizance has been taken by the respondent No. 1-State as well as respondent No. 2 on the said representation/report dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-20). Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file their response that on the representation/report dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure-20) what action has been taken by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same be filed by the next date of hearing. List on 19.07.2023. The application (IA No. 1/2023) is disposed of accordingly.” 2. On 08.08.2023 when the case was taken up for hearing, with the consent of the counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the State submits that an additional affidavit has been filed in the Registry today. List on 19.07.2023. The application (IA No. 1/2023) is disposed of accordingly.” 2. On 08.08.2023 when the case was taken up for hearing, with the consent of the counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the State submits that an additional affidavit has been filed in the Registry today. He, however, contends that in pursuance of the order passed by the Government, a two member committee has been constituted. The committee will start its inquiry from 10.08.2023 onwards and, therefore, the learned counsel states that the case be listed for hearing after a period of one week thereafter. List on 21.08.2023. On the date fixed, let the report be produced of the committee in Court. In case, the report is found to be in favour of respondent No. 5, the writ petition shall be dismissed with costs not less than an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Let the name of Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel, be reflected in the cause list as counsel for the respondent No. 5.” 3. Perusal of the above orders would indicate that the petitioner had insisted upon the aspect with regard to several irregularities in the appointment of respondent No. 5 - Vice Chancellor in the Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner, was made the basis of challenge. It is in pursuance thereto, a two member Committee was constituted by the Governor which had gone into such allegations, although during the initial stage itself, one of the members had resigned and thereafter, another Vice Chancellor was appointed as a Member of that Committee which is reflected in the order dated 01.09.2023. 4. All through and on going through the various orders which have been passed, it is apparent that the fate of the writ petition was depending upon the outcome of the report of the Committee as constituted by the Governor. What is apparent as per the order dated 08.08.2023 is that, in case the report of the Committee comes in favour of respondent No. 5 - the appointed Vice Chancellor whose appointment has been assailed, the writ petition shall be dismissed with costs not less than an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The Court, therefore, need not have gone beyond this and on submission of the report by the Committee, should have proceeded to dismiss the same. 5. The Court, therefore, need not have gone beyond this and on submission of the report by the Committee, should have proceeded to dismiss the same. 5. Perusal of the orders as has been passed by this Court would indicate that at no stage, the eligibility of respondent No. 5 was questioned and it is with an intention to come out of the costs which are likely to be imposed upon the petitioner, that an effort is being made by counsel for the petitioner to assert with regard to the respondent No. 5 being not eligible for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. 6. We do not intend to state any further but to adjourn the case for consideration on 08.11.2023, when this aspect will be exclusively considered by the Bench.” 9. This Court also observes that the respondent no. 5 has been exonerated, from the allegations levelled against him, by the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Governor, and thus, nothing is left to be considered in the present PIL petition, except the aspect of imposition of cost, as observed by this Hon’ble Court on the previous occasions. 10. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case. 11. This Court further observes that the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the issues of character and conduct of the Vice Chancellor (respondent no. 5), reference whereof has also been made in the FIR, but in the opinion of this Court, the character and conduct are to be seen at the threshold; however, after the report of the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Governor, nothing remains in the issue. Learned counsel has also raised the issue that the Vice Chancellor did not have mandatory experience of 10 years of Professorship, instead such experience possessed by the said Vice Chancellor is that of 9½ years, but this Court is satisfied that as per the work chart, apart the said 9½ years work experience, the Vice Chancellor had worked for three years as Director, which, as per the learned counsel for the University, only a Full-time Professor can work. 12. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present PIL Petition. 13. Consequently, the present Public Interest Litigation Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which is also in tandem with the previous order of cost already passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in this matter. The said cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee, Jodhpur within a period of 30 days from today, and in case the same is not deposited within the said period, then the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee, Jodhpur shall take all the necessary steps to recover such costs from the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The report of the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Governor, which has completely exonerated the respondent No. 5 and as examined by this Court in its order dated 06.10.2023, shall be retained in record, in a sealed cover. All pending applications stand disposed of.