Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Chitra Sarupariya vs State * Ors on 15 November, 2016
Author: G.K. Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 6855 / 2016
Dr. Chitra Sarupariya w/o Shri Sandeep Sarupriya,
R/O H.No.3, Panch Bhatti Colony, Panch Batti Circle,
Jodhpur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.
2. Principal Secretary, Governor of Rajasthan,
Chancellor, JNV University, Raj Bhavan, Jaipur
(Raj.(
3. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur
Sahah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
4. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
through its Vice Chancellor.
5. Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
6. Abid Khan, Finance Comptroller, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
7. Mr. Rajnikant Trivedi, Assistant Professor,
Department of Economics, Faculty of Arts,
Humanities & Social Sciences, Jai Naraian Vyas
University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
8. Miss. Jaya Bhandari, Assistant professor,
Department of Economics, Faculty of Arts,
Humanities & Social Sciences, Jai Narain Vyas
University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioners Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondents Mr. Ashok Chhangani, Mr.
Sanjay Mathur and Mr. Pawan Singh Meena, Mr.
Vikas Balia
__________________________________________
2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANI Order Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Vyas 15/11/2016 The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs, which reads as under:
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-
A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the Ordinance No.317, Jai Narain Vyas University Act, 1962 (as amended) notified on 27.09.2011 (Annex.3) and the advertisement No.74/2011-12 (Annex.5) may be declared ultra vires to the extent it is inconformity with the UGC Regulations 2009 and 2010 and the same may be declared unconstitutional and inoperative.
B. By appropriate writ or direction the Ordinance No.317, Jai Narain Vyas University Act, 1962 (as amended) notified on 27.09.2011 (Annex.3) and the advertisement No.74/2011-12 (Annex.5) may be declared illegal to the extent to the provision therein, in violation to Law laid down in the Judgments rendered in the case of Meena Kumari Gurjar dated 15.05.2015 (Annex.10), Judgment passed by the Apex Court in P.Suseela dated 16.03.2015 (Annex.8).
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the preposition/law laid down in the case of Meena Kumari Gurjar dated 15.05.2015 (Annex.10), judgment passed by the Apex Court in P.Suseela dated 16.03.2015 (Annex.8), resolution dated 18.05.1985 (Annex.16) and the case of petitioner may be 3 considered in this light and appointment may be accorded to her with all consequential benefits.
D. By appropriate writ or direction the appointments held in pursuance to the Ordinance No.317, Jai Narain Vyas University Act, 1962 (as amended) notified on 27.09.2011 (Annex.3) and the advertisement No.74/2011-12 (Annex.5) may be declared illegal to the extent to the provision therein which is in violation to the Laws laid down in the Judgments rendered in the case of Meena Kumari Gurjar dated 15.05.2015 (Annex.10), Judgment passed by the Apex Court in P. Suseela dated 16.03.2015 (Annex.8) and UGC Regulations 2009 & 2010.
E. By appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to amend the Act/Statutes/Ordinance of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 if occasion so arises.
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
G. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.
Counsel for the respondent, Jai Narain Vyas University private respondents raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that the relief as contained in prayer clause No.(A) and (B) for quashment of Ordinance No.317 of Jai Narain Vyas Act, 1962 (as amended) and notified on 27.9.2011 by declaring it ultra vires on the ground that same is not consistent with the UGC Regulations, 2009-10 alongwith other 4 prayer but quashing the Advertisement No.74/2011- 12 referred above, cannot be granted to the petitioner because earlier the petitioner filed DBCWP No.23/2013 (Dr. Chitra Sarupariya Vs. JNV University, Jodhpur & Ors.) for the same relief, but that writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 19.8.2015 and that judgment became final because neither any review petition, nor any special leave petition was preferred against the said order by the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
Further submitted that the present writ petition suffers from laches and acquiesce because the petitioner has already appeared in the interview pursuant to the impugned Ordinance and her candidature was rejected after interview, therefore, petitioner cannot challenge the process of selection. The other prayer made by the petitioner for seeking direction to comply the proposition/law laid down by this court in case of Meena Kumari Gurjar Vs.UOI & Ors. (SBCWP No.13449/2012), decided on 15.5.2015 while following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Suseela & Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission & Ors arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.36023-36032/2010, decided on 16.3.2015 and 5 prayer for direction to consider and provide appointment with all consequential benefits in the light of aforesaid judgment, cannot be granted to the petitioner because while deciding Meena Kumari Gujar's case, the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court.
According to the learned counsel for the respondent-University and private respondents, the petitioner cannot be permitted to make contrary prayer which is evident from the fact that on the one hand, the petitioner has prayed for quashing whole selection process and on the other hand, it is prayed by her to consider her case in the light of judgment rendered by this court in the case of Meena Kumari Gurjar, decided on 15.5.2015, therefore, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
While giving reply to the preliminary objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to the dismissal of DBCWP No.23/2013 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.8.2015 for the same relief, but submits that the said writ petition was dismissed by the court on technical grounds, therefore, the petitioner can file another writ petition for the same relief because on 6 19.8.2015, DBCWP No.13382/2012 : Deepak Bhardwaj Vs. UNV University, Jodhpur was also decided and in pursuance of that, the case of Deepak Bhardwaj was considered, therefore, a representation was field by the petitioner to consider her case for the post of Assistant Professor in Economics subject. It is also submitted that while deciding SBCWP No.11314/2015 : Dr. Jai Shree Ranawat Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 4.11.2015, the case of Deepak Bhardwaj was again considered, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable and the respondent- University is required to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor in Economics subject, in spite of the fact that DBCWP No.23/2013 filed by the petitioner for same prayer was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.8.2015.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties it emerges from the facts that prior to filing this writ petition for seeking prayer to quash the advertisement no.74/2012 (Annex.P/2) and Ordinance No.317, so also, to seek direction to quash UGC Regulations, 2009, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23/2013 was filed by the petitioner and the same was dismissed on 19.05.2015 by the Division Bench, against that order, 7 no appeal or review petition was filed by the petitioner, therefore, the said judgment became final.
It is also very important to observe that on 19.8.2015 when writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, the judgment in the case of Meena Kumari Gujar (SBCWP No.13449/2012), decided on 15.5.2015 was in existence but the bench hearing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 19.8.2015 did not consider the case of Meena Kumari Gurjar and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, in which no prayer was made by the petitioner herself to decide her case in the light of Meena Kumari Gujar's case; and now again in this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed her right in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Meena Kumari's case decided on 15.5.2015 much before the dismissal of petitioner's earlier writ petition on 19.8.2015. It is also required to observe that first prayer in this writ petition is to quash the advertisement and ordinance no.317 of JNV University Act, 1962 and for the same prayer earlier the writ petition was field and dismissed by this Court, therefore, we are of the opinion that this second writ petition filed by the petitioner for quashing advertisement no.774/2011-12 issued in the year 2011 in which petitioner herself appeared and 8 declared unsuccessful cannot be permitted to challenge the same again when her first writ petition was dismissed.
In view of above, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition in view of the fact that judicial discipline is required to be maintained by the courts.
Consequently, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J. cpgoyal/-ps