Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr. Shankarlal Garg vs Kuladhipati Vikram University Through ... on 3 April, 2019

             High Court of Madhya Pradesh

                                                                  1


W.P.No.6735/2019
(Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Vs. Kuladhipati, Vikram University and others)

Indore: 03/04/2019
       Shri Vivek Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
       Ms.   Sadhana     Pathak,,    Government     Advocate     for   the
respondents No.2 and 3/State, on advance copy.

A retired Principal of an Arts and Commerce College, Indore has approached this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Quo-Warranto against Vikram University / respondent No.5 that office of Vice Chancellor (Kulpati) is vacant and appointment of respondent No.4 on 13/03/2019 (Annexure P/1) as Vice Chancellor be quashed with further direction that appointment amongst the panel of candidates recommended by the State Government be made on the said post.

2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced, it is apposite to reiterate the nature and scope for judicial enquiry in the quo-warranto proceedings.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The University of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 held that a citizen seeking writ of quo-warranto must satisfy the Court inter alia that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without any legal authority leading to an enquiry as to whether the appointment of such usurper was made in accordance with law or not.

The aforesaid proposition of law has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions.

In the case of High Court of Gujarat and another Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others, (2002) 6 SCC 269, it has been held that the writ of quo-warranto can only be issued when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory rules.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for PIL and another Vs. Union of India and another, (2011) 4 SCC 1, it has been held as under:

"Even in R.K.Jain Vs. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119] this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether procedure adopted was fair, just and High Court of Madhya Pradesh 2 W.P.No.6735/2019 (Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Vs. Kuladhipati, Vikram University and others) reasonable. We reiterate that Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction."

In the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and others, AIR 2014 SC 246, it is held that the basic purpose of writ of quo-warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority.

The same view is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 6 SCC 162.

3. In the instant case, it appears that the State Government has issued a notification under section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam, 1973'), for the reasons stated therein (detrimental to the interests of the University) bringing into operation the provisions of sections 13 and 14 in particular, from the date specified in the notification applying the same to the Vikram University subject to modification specified in Third Schedule.

Modified section 13 empowers the Chancellor (Kuladipati) to appoint and remove the Vice Chancellor (Kulpati) in consultation with the State Government.

Respondent No.4; a Professor in Sanskrit and Director, Scindia Oriental Research Institute Vikram University, Ujjain has been appointed as Vice Chancellor, Vikram University, Ujjain by the Chancellor in exercise of the powers under modified sections 13 and 14, Third Schedule read with section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the educational and eligibility qualifications of respondent No.4 for appointment as Vice Chancellor and also the competence and authority of the Chancellor to make the appointment of respondent High Court of Madhya Pradesh 3 W.P.No.6735/2019 (Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Vs. Kuladhipati, Vikram University and others) No.4 in law. However, the appointment of respondent No.4 is criticized on a self-styled belief that there was no consultation with the State Government with a collateral purpose seeking appointment from amongst other empanelled aspirants including himself in preference to respondent No.4 in a quo-warranto proceeding. The aforesaid assertion is sought to be rested on the unjustifiable internal departmental note sheets.

5. I am afraid that the reliefs sought in this writ petition can be countenanced. The academic accreditions, experience and eligibility of the respondent No.4 for appointment as Vice Chancellor are not in dispute. The appointment is made in exercise of emergency powers by the Chancellor (Kuladhipati) under section 52(3) read with modified sections 13 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1973; consequent upon notification issued by the State Government under section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. As such, the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor (Kulpati) cannot be held to be an usurper without legal authority, that too, at the instance of the petitioner one of the aspirants seeking relief of preference to respondent No.4 for such appointment in a quo-warranto proceeding under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Rohit Arya) Judge b/-