Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore the respondents could have asserted their right against the appointment order. They have not done so. By their conduct and silence they have abandoned such a right. They have acquisced in the selection process. Therefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Estoppel which is a rule in equity would be applicable. The judgment therefore is amply applicable not only to the petitioner, but also to each one of the parties to the petitions. Each one of them have taken different stands at different stages. There is a total misconception of law. Each one of the respondents claim to have the power of appointment. Therefore, the judgment in Cauvery Coffee Traders's would be applicable to each one of the parties.

(d) Under these circumstances, I 'am of the considered view that firstly, it cannot be said that the participation of the petitioner has affected the decision making process of the Governing Council. In fact, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that, when the resolution pertaining to the selection of the Dean was taken up for consideration by the Governing Council, the petitioner did not participate. He had excused himself and went out of the room when the resolution came up for discussion. He, however, pleads his inability to substantiate his contention by any material. Therefore, he pleads that the record of the institute be looked into, to test his contention. However, the records are not placed before the Court. It has not been controverted by the institute by producing the records. Even otherwise, in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such an issue cannot be raised at such a belated stage. They have acquiesced in the selection process. They have issued the appointment order. The appointment order is not under challenge in these petitions. It is only as a rebuttal that the respondents seek to contend that the resolution of the Governing Council is vitiated due to the presence of the petitioner. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CAUVERY COFFEE TRADER's case hereinabove at para-35, hereto the respondents by their conduct and silence have abandoned such a right. They have acquisced in the selection process. Assuming that they were aware of the legal position they have accepted the Notification as well as the subsequent proceedings. They have not asserted their right against the appointment order. It has not been questioned in an appropriate Forum. Therefore as held by the Supreme Court in para-35 of the said Judgment the Doctrine of estoppel would be applicable. Further by the conduct and acquiscence they have acquisced in the selection process. Under these circumstances, the contention urged by the respondents with regard to the vitiation of the proceedings in view of the presence of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I 'am of the considered view that the contention of the respondents to this effect cannot be accepted.