Dr.Tapobrata Lahiri vs Union Of India And Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 1013 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

						Reserved on 14.3.2013
 
Delivered on 17.4.2013
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33802 of 2012
 
Petitioner :- Dr.Tapobrata Lahiri
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Saurabh Basu
 
Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I.
 
 			________
 

 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.)

The petitioner, who is an Assistant Associate Professor in Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad has come up in this writ petition praying for issue of a writ of quo-warranto commanding and directing the respondent no. 5 to show cause as to how he is holding the office of Director Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad. A writ of certiorari has also been prayed for quashing the letters dated 7.3.2012 and 19.3.2012 by which the period of reappointment of respondent no. 5 has been modified. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

We have heard Sri Saurabh Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Fujail Ahmad Ansari has appeared on behalf of Union of India.

Facts of the case as emerged from pleadings of the parties briefly stated are; Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad was established in the year 1999. The respondent no. 5, Dr. Muralidhar Tiwari was appointed as Director, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad for a period of three years w.e.f. 21.1.2002. The Appointment Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposal for continuance of respondent no. 5 for a further period of two years w.e.f. 22.1.2005 up to 21.1.2007 or until further orders which ever was earlier. In November, 2006, the process for selection of new Director of the Indian Institute of Information Technology was initiated. An advertisement in the 'Times of India' dated 9.12.2006 was also issued inviting applications. The tenure of respondent no. 5, Director came to an end on 21.1.2007. A proposal was sent for continuance of outgoing Director in accordance with Rule 10(a)(1) of Memorandum of Association of the institute. A search Committee for recommending a panel for appointment of Director was constituted. The Search Committee vide its report dated 21.5.2007 recommended panel of three persons including the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 was given a reappointment for a period of five years. The order dated 27.12.2007 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development communicating that the Appointments Committee of Cabinet has approved the proposal of reappointment of Dr. Muralidhar Tiwari as Director for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 21.1.2007 or till he attains the age of 65 years or until further orders which ever is earlier.

A representation was submitted by respondent no. 5 that his reappointment for the period of five years should be treated to have commenced from 30.12.2007 when he joined as a regular Director. The representation was processed. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet vide letter dated 1.3.2010 approved the proposal for partial modification in the period of reappointment of respondent no. 5 for a full term of five years w.e.f. 27.12.2007 instead of w.e.f. 21.1.2007. Communication dated 7.3.2012 was issued by the Government of India giving the full term of five years w.e.f. 27.12.2007. It was further mentioned in the said letter that Appointments Committee of Cabinet has also issued ex-facto approval for the period 21.1.2007 to 26.12.2007. Communications in this context was issued on 7.3.2012 and 19.3.2012 by the Government of India.

The petitioner appeared on 27.6.2007 before the Performance Appraisal Committee for performance appraisal. The Performance Appraisal Committee recommended on 27.6.2012 to take severe disciplinary action against the petitioner as per Rules on account of misbehaviour with the Chair and Committee. On 28.6.2012, the petitioner sent a complaint addressed to the District Magistrate, Allahabad with copy to Ministers and Secretaries of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Hon'ble Chancellor and Board of Management Members of Indian Institute of Information Technology alleging that the respondent no. 5 is harassing the petitioner. In the complaint, allegations against the respondent no. 5 were made. It was mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner was called at 9:30 a.m. to face appraisal meeting. On 2.7.2012 office order was issued appointing a Departmental Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry against the petitioner. A letter dated 6.7.2012 was again sent to the petitioner referring to the resolutions of Board of Management dated 29.6.2012, which required the petitioner to submit the physical fitness certificate from hospitals like Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute, Lucknow or All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The petitioner replied the letter dated 6.7.2012 vide his letter dated 8.7.2012 terming the letters dated 2.7.2012 6.7.2012 as malafide and illegal. He stated that he has already received the letter dated 2.7.2012 under protest. The present writ petition was filed in this Court on 13.7.2012 with the following prayers:

" (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order and the letter dated 07.03.2012 and 19.03.2012 modifying the period of time. (Contained in Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo-warranto commanding and directing the respondents No. 5 to show cause as to how he is holding the office of the respondent no. 4 Even after the expiry of his term.

(iii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo-warranto ousting respondent no. 4, from his office being usurper of his office as his appointment is against the Rules of IIIT-A."

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 alleging that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner due to malice and ill will and as a counter blast to the disciplinary inquiry which has been initiated against the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has never been a candidate for the post of Director hence, he is not an aggrieved person. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. It has been stated that the earlier appointment of respondent no. 5 as a Director came to an end on 21.1.2007 and thereafter he continued to hold his office by virtue of Rule 10(a)(1) of Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of institute. The Search Committee recommended panel of three candidates in its meeting dated 21.5.2007 which was sent to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet on 22.8.2007 and after approval of the reappointment of respondent no. 5 for five years, an order dated 27.12.2007 was issued. It is stated that on the representation of respondent no. 5 treating his reappointment for the period of five years w.e.f. 30.12.2007, the matter was sent for consideration before the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet which approved partial modification in the period of reappointment on 1.3.2010. The term of reappointment of the petitioner was modified to take effect w.e.f. 27.12.2007 for a period of five years. The petitioner's continuance from 21.1.2007 to 26.12.2007 was also ex-post facto approval. It is pleaded that the respondent no. 5 is holding the post of Director by virtue of order issued by the Government of India. It is further pleaded that the memorandum of Association of the institute has been modified which are in force from November, 2011 according to which after expiry of the second term, the Director is to continue to hold the post till his successor assumes office. It is stated that there is no illegality in the appointment or continuance of respondent no. 5 as Director of Institute. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India in which above mentioned facts have been reiterated and appointment of respondent no. 5 as Director and his continuance as Director have been justified.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition contended that respondent no. 5 was appointed as Director w.e.f. 21.1.2007 for a period of five years which term came to an end on 21.1.2012 and thereafter he could not have continued on the office of Director. It is submitted that subsequent modifications in the tenure vide letters dated 7.3.2012 and 19.3.2012 were illegal which are nothing but manipulation and afterthought. It is contended that the respondent no. 5 has no authority to continue on the office of Director and a writ of quo warranto be issued ousting him from the office of Director. It is further submitted that even according to letter dated 19.3.2012, the tenure of respondent no 4 came to an end on 26.12.2012 and thereafter his continuance is illegal. He submits that according to Rule 13.1 (ii) of the revised Memorandum of Association and Rules after expiry of period of five years, at best the respondent no. 5 could have continued for a period of six months which was outer limit of continuance. Thus, the respondent no. 5 could have continued from 21.1.2012 for a period of six months only and thereafter he should have vacated the office. The respondent no. 5 is continuing illegally in the office of Director, he be ousted from the office. It is submitted that before the Appraisal Committee, the respondent no. 4/5 started misbehaving with the petitioner and he was taken in the adjacent room and detained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all details regarding disciplinary inquiry has been mentioned in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that in new Memorandum of Association & Rules 13.1(ii) proviso providing for continuance of the office after expiry of five years for not more than six months or till his successor is appointed which ever is latter, is contrary to the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010. He submits that in the UGC Regulations, the provision is that Vice Chancellor shall continue in his office for not more than six months or till his successor is appointed which ever is earlier and Rule 13.1. of the institute is not in accordance with the U.G.C. Regulations.

Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has filed the writ petition to settle personal score and the material fact that disciplinary inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner before filing of the writ petition vide order dated 2.7.2012 has been conveniently concealed from this Court and the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material fact. The writ petition is a counter blast and is result of initiation of disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner hence, such writ petition be not entertained and thrown out on this ground alone. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II) B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees's Assn. and others.

Sri R.B. Singhal submits that the continuance of respondent no. 5 in the office of Director is on the basis of the appointment orders issued by the Government of India Ministry of Human Resource and Training. He submits that the order dated 19.3.2012 modifying the date of start of tenure of respondent no. 5 was fully justified since the second term could start only after regular appointment which was made after the order dated 27.12.2012. He submits that after expiry of the tenure of the Director, the respondent no. 5 is continuing by virtue of Rule 13.1 (a) of the Rules of the institute and no case has been made out to issue any writ of quo-warranto.

We have considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The submissions of Sri R.N. Singh that the writ petition has been filed with concealment of material facts, to settle personal score and is not a bonafide writ petition and should be thrown out, need to be considered first. From the sequence of the events as has been noted above, following are the undisputed facts:

1. The petitioner appeared before the Performance Appraisal Committee on 27.6.2012 in which the respondent no. 5, the Director was also present. The Performance Appraisal Committee made following recommendations against the petitioner. (Copy of proceedings have been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4):

"While discussing he forgot the decorum and misbehaved with the Chair and Committee. Severe disciplinary action be taken as per rules."

2. On 28.6.2012, the petitioner submitted a detailed complaint addressed to the District Magistrate, Allahabad with copy to Ministers and Secretaries of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Hon'ble Chancellor and Board of Management Members of Indian Institute of Information Technology making serious allegations against the respondent no. 5 of harassment and personal vindictiveness.

3. On 2.7.2012 an order was issued appointing Prof O.P. Vyas as Departmental Enquiry Officer to initiate inquiry against the petitioner.

4. On 6.7.2012, a letter was communicated to the petitioner asking him to produce physical fitness certificate from one of the hospitals mentioned in the letter referring to the resolution of 29.6.2012 of Board of Management.

5. On 8.7.2012, the petitioner submitted reply to the letter dated 6.7.2012 alleging that letter dated 6.7.2012 and 2.7.2012 are malafide and illegal. The petitioner stated that he has received the order dated 2.7.2012 under protest.

6. The present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 13.7.2012.

In the writ petition, the petitioner has conveniently not mentioned any of the aforesaid facts resulting into initiation of disciplinary inquiry against him. He has also not referred to the complaints submitted by him against the respondent no. 5. It is relevant to notice that in the complaint which has been sent by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of respondents no. 3 and 4, there are allegations against the respondent no. 5 relating to the years 2008,2009, 2011 etc. According to the petitioner, the tenure of office of respondent no. 5 came to an end on 21.1.2012. The petitioner did not choose to file the writ petition at any earlier point of time and he chose to file the writ petition only on 13.7.2012 when disciplinary inquiry has already been initiated against him. The fact that an incident took place on 27.6.2012 in which the Performance Appraisal Committee on account of the alleged misbehaviuor of the petitioner has decided to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and actually disciplinary inquiry was initiated by appointing Enquiry Officer on 2.7.2012, which orders were in full knowledge of the petitioner but the petitioner concealed the aforesaid facts in the writ petition, which is a clear case of suppression of material facts. The petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition praying that writ of quo-warranto be issued against the respondent no. 5. The judgment which has been relied by learned Counsel for the respondents do support the submissions of learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5. The apex Court has held that when the writ petition lacks bonafide and is outcome of malice and ill will, writ of quo warranto should be refused. Following proposition of law was laid down in paragraph 53 which is quoted below:

"This Court in A.N. Sashtri vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1988) Supp SCC 127 held that the Writ of Quo Warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will. The High Court failed to appreciate that on 18.01.2003 the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent Halakatte that cognizance was taken by the criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by the jurisdictional magistrate on 24.02.2003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12.06.2003 and the trial is in progress. That apart, the second respondent has made successive complaints to the Lokayukta against the appellant which were all held to be baseless and false. This factual background which was not disputed coupled with the fact that the second respondent Halakatte initiated the writ petition as President of the 1st respondent Union which had ceased to be a registered trade union as early as on 02.11.1992 suppressing the material fact of its registration having been cancelled, making allegations against the appellant which were no more than the contents of the complaints filed by him before the Authorities which had been found to be false after thorough investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta would unmistakably establish that the writ petition initiated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 lacked in bona fides and it was the outcome of the malice and ill-will the 2nd respondent nurses against the appellant. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone and at any event should have refused to issue a Quo Warranto which is purely discretionary. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi is relaxed to an extent in a Quo Warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposture coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly."

In view of the facts as noted, we are of the view that at the instance of the petitioner, the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

Although the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground as noted above but instead of dismissing the writ petition on the aforesaid ground alone, we are of the view that looking to the nature of the office which is held by the respondent no. 4 i.e. Director of Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad, we deem it proper to consider the submissions raised by the petitioner on merits to the effect that the respondent no. 5 is not entitled to continue in the office of Director and deserves to be ousted.

Before we proceed to consider the submissions on merits, it is useful to look into the relevant Rules regulating the appointment of Director. Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Rules of the Society have been registered with the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Rule 10 of the Rules of the Society relates to appointment on the post of Director. Rule 10 (a) is as follows:

"(10) (a) Appointment of the Director

(1) The Director shall be a whole time salaried officer of the institute.

He shall be appointed by the Central Government on contractual basis on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted for this purpose. The Director shall hold office for a term of 5 years. A person appointed as Director shall retire from office during the tenure of his office, when he completes the age of 65 years. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Clause, unless the Government otherwise directs, the outgoing Director shall continue in office unless his successor takes over the charge of the office of the Director.

(2) If the office of the Director becomes vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise and in his absence due to illness or any cause, the Deputy Director or if there is no Deputy Director, the senior most Dean shall perform the duties of Director until a new Director is appointed or the existing Director resumes duties.

(3) The Deputy Director of the Institute shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the bye-laws and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties s may be assigned to him under the bye-laws or by the Director"

The aforesaid Rules of the society were amended vide meeting held on 15.11.2011 which have also been registered on 26.11.2011. The amended Rules of the society contains Rule 13. Rule 13.1 is rule providing for appointment of Director, which is quoted as below:

" 13.1 Appointment of the Director

(i) The Director shall be a whole time salaried officer of the institution deemed to be university and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three names suggested by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be:-

1. A nominee of the Chancellor

2. A nominee of UGC; who shall be an eminent academic nominated by the Government in consultation with the UGC

3. A nominee of the Board of Management

(ii) The Director shall hold office for a term of 5 years. He shall be eligible for a second term, provided that in no case shall he hold office beyond the age of 70 years.

Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of 5 years, he/she may continue in office for not more than six months or till his/her successor is appointed and the latter assumes office, whichever, is later.

(iii) In case of the office of the Director becoming vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise and in case of his / her absence due to illness or any other cause, the Deputy Director, and in his / her absence, the Senior most Dean or, if there is no Dean, the senior most Professor shall perform the duties of the Director until a new Director is appointed, or the existing Director resumes duties, as the case may be."

The petitioner himself has relied on Rule 13.1 (ii) which rule has been extracted and quoted in paragraph 10 of the writ petition.

There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent no. 5 was reappointed for a period of five years. The order dated 27.12.2007 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition appointing the respondent no. 5 for a period of five years w.e.f. 21.1.2007 or till he attains the age of 65 years or until further orders which ever was earliest. There is no dispute of continuance of respondent no. 5 as Director till 21.1.2012. The process of appointment on the post of Director was initiated in the month of November, 2006 and a Search Committee was constituted to make selection. The tenure which according to the order dated 27.12.2007 was commenced on 21.1.2007 was subsequently modified by Appointments Committee of the Cabinet w.e.f. 27.12.2007. In the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India, it has been stated that the process of appointment on post of Director was initiated in November, 2006 and a Search-cum Selection Committee was constituted, which submitted a panel on 21.5.2007 of three names including the name of Dr. M.D. Tiwari. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet approved the reappointment of Dr. Tiwari for five years. In paragraph 14 of counter affidavit filed by Union of India the reason for modifying the date from 21.1.2007 to 27.12.2007. It is useful to quote paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit which is to the following effect:

"14. That the matter was considered by the Ministry in terms of the provision of the Memorandum of Association and Rules of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad. It was observed that the continuance of Dr. M.D. Tiwari as Director, IIIT, Allahabad beyond 21.01.2007 was by consequence of provision 10(a) (1) of the Memorandum of Association/Rules which permitted his continuance till a successor was appointed whereas Dr. M.D. Tiwari was appointed again for a second tenure through a de-novo process that involved issue of an advertisement and constituting a search-cum-selection process. The two proposals emanate from two separate provisions of the Memorandum of Association/Rules and, therefore, the period of appointment made through the de-novo process could not have been deemed to have become effective from 21.01.2007 when the order of appointment was issued 27.12.2007. That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Memorandum of Association/Rules governing Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad, the request of Dr. M.D. Tiwari, Director, IIIT-Allahabad w.e.f. 27.01.2007 was submitted to the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet for its consideration and direction. The Appointment Committee of Cabinet vide letter dated 1st March, 2012 approved the proposal for partial modification in the period of re-appointment of Dr. M.D. Tiwari as Director of IIIT Allahabad for a full term of five years with effect from 27.12.2007 (instead of 21.1.2007) or till he attains the age of 65 years until further orders, whichever is the earliest. The Appointment committee of Cabinet also approved ex-post fact continuation of Dr. M.D. Tiwari as Director, IIIT-A for the period from 21.1.2007 to 26.12.2007, which was conveyed to the Chancellor of IIIT-A and the Director, IIIT-A vide this Ministry's letter dated 19th March, 2012."

As noted above, by virtue of Rule 13.1 Director was to continue in the office for period not more than six months or till his/her successor is appointed and the latter assumes office, which ever is later. For argument's sake even if it is assumed that the tenure of respondent no. 5 came to an end on 21.1.2012 by virtue of Rule 13.1 (ii) proviso as quoted above, the respondent no. 5 is to continue till his successor is chosen. Further more, the reason given by the Union of India in its counter affidavit as quoted above for modifying the date for start of five years tenure of respondent no. 5 w.e.f. 27.12.2007 is justified and no exception can be taken to the letter dated 19.3.2012.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that under UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010, in clause 6.2 the Vice Chancellor after expiry of period of five years can continue in office for not more than six months or till his or her successor is appointed and assumes office whichever is earlier. It is relevant to note that there is no challenge in this writ petition to Rule 13.1 of the Memorandum of Association & Rules of the Institute as amended w.e.f. 15.11.2011. There being no challenge to the Rules which Rules have been approved and are in force, it is not necessary for us to consider the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010. The present writ petition is a writ of quo warranto. We are satisfied that the respondent no. 5 has been occupying the office of the Director by virtue of his appointment as Director for the second term read with Rule 13.1 of the Rules of the Institute which are in force. Rule 13.1 which is still operative permits the Director whose term has come to an end to continue in the office till his successor is chosen. Admittedly, successor to the office of Director has not yet been chosen. For issue of a writ of quo-warranto, the petitioner has to establish that the office is held by the usurper without any legal authority. While considering the scope of issue of writ of quo-waranto, the apex Court in AIR 1965 S.C. 491 University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao has laid down following:

"Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has not title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointment to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."

The apex Court in (2003) 4 SCC 712 HC Gujrat Vs. Gujrat Mazdoor Kisan Panchayat laid down that a writ of quo-warrant can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. Following was laid down in paragraphs 22 and 23:

"22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of writ of certiorari. [See R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119.

23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop Transport Society Ltd. V. Financial Commr.& Secy, to Govt. of Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269."

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the appointment of respondent no. 5 on the post of Director of the Institute was not contrary to the Rules and his continuance in the office is supported by Rule 13.1 of the Rules of the institute which are still in force. We do not find it a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction for issuing a writ of quo warranto in the facts of the present case. The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.4.2013

LA/-