Dr. Meenakshi Gupta vs University Of Delhi & Ors

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.8145/2013

%                                                     20th December, 2013

DR. MEENAKSHI GUPTA                                        ..... Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. Nitin Dhaiya, Advocate.


                          Versus


UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS                           ..... Respondents
                  Through:               Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.17190/2013 (exemption)

             Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

             C.M. stands disposed of.

+ W.P.(C) No.8145/2013 and C.M. No.17189/2013 (stay)

1.           Some petitioners insist on abusing process of law. This is one

such petitioner.    An earlier writ petition was filed being W.P.(C)

No.6799/2013 which was withdrawn after arguments because no case was


W.P.(C) No.8145/2013                                          page 1 of 3
 made out. No case was made out because appointment of the petitioner as

Vice-Principal was without the approval of the governing body, and

accordingly the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Principal was

withdrawn. No fresh petition can be filed on the same cause of action and

the petitioner essentially through this writ petition except making certain

additional averments of appointment of one Mr. Vipin Kumar as Vice

Principal (who is not even impleaded in this petition) states nothing more.

Therefore this writ petition is essentially barred on account of the principle

enshrined in Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For the

sake of completion of narration, I may note that even in this petition there

is nothing filed to show that there was approval of the governing body of

the college for the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Principal.

2.           Assuming the case is not barred, let us examine the case on

merits. So far as challenge to the fresh appointment of Sh. Vipin Kumar is

concerned, firstly there is no provision in law that only the senior most

person has to be appointed as the Vice-Principal. In fact, petitioner herself

relies upon the relevant ordinance in para 3(b) of the petition which does

not provide for any appointment of a Vice-Principal by rotation according

to seniority and all that the ordinance states is that Vice-Principal is

appointed from amongst the Senior Lecturers in Senior Grade/Reader's

W.P.(C) No.8145/2013                                         page 2 of 3
 Grade. Therefore, there is no basis for the petitioner to contend that

appointment of Vice-Principal has to be on the basis of seniority.

3.           Another reason for the petitioner now not being entitled to the

post of Vice-Principal is that the petitioner herself in para 3(c) of petition

states that only such person can be appointed as the Vice-Principal who

meets the qualifications for the post of Principal. The writ petition does

not state as to how the petitioner meets the qualifications for being

appointed to the post of Principal. In any case, even by the amended rules

there is no requirement of appointment of Vice-Principal merely on the

principle of seniority.

4.           In view of the above, the writ petition is wholly misconceived

and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.




DECEMBER 20, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne W.P.(C) No.8145/2013 page 3 of 3