Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Shanta Paul vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 17 July, 2023
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
APPELLATE SIDE
RESERVED ON: 27.06.2023
DELIVERED ON:17.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
WPA (P)/302/2023
SMT. SHANTA PAUL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:-
Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Arijit Kumar Bera, Adv.
Ms. Geniya Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Zeba Rashid, Adv.
Ms. Shrabani Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Shaika Amrin, Adv.
.....For the Petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Mookherjee Ld. Advocate General.
Mr. Samrat Sen, Ld. A.A.A.G Adv.
Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Adv.
Ms. Amrita Panja Moulik, Adv.
.....For the State.
Mr. Jaydip Kar, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pijush Biswas, Adv.
Page 1 of 19
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
.....For the Respondent Nos. 2 & 5.
Mr. Puspasish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Baran Das, Adv.
Mrs. Srijoni Chongdar, Adv.
....For the Respondent Nos. 3 & 6
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.)
1. This writ petition filed as a public interest litigation seeks for a declaration
to declare the appointment of the 6th respondent, the Registrar of Kazi Nazrul
University as non-est/nullity, as it is based on erroneous advertisement which
is not in conformity with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018
in short (UGC Regulations). The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of
quo warranto to call upon the 6th respondent to show cause as to why he
should not be ousted from the public office on declaring his appointment dated
01.02.2023 as Registrar of the said university being illegal.
2. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the University is
illegal as it is based on false details of employment experience furnished by the
6th respondent; the employment advertisement issued by the university is not
in conformity with the UGC Regulations; and erroneous advertisement would
not create a right in favour of an applicant who acts on such representation;
the AICTE Regulations, 2010 and the earlier clarification issued in 2003 is
binding upon private institutions run with the approval of the AICTE and the
UGC Regulations and the AICTE notification which prescribed minimum
essential qualification and length of service for promotion to higher post has a
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
force of a statute. It is submitted that as per the notification dated 02.11.2017
(adopted in 2018 by UGC) a candidate is eligible to apply for the post of
Registrar who has at least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in
academic Level 11 and above or with the 8 years of service in academic Level
12 and the above and including Associate Professor along with experience in
educational administration or comparable experience in research
establishment and/or other institutions of higher education or 15 years of
administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an
equivalent post. It is further submitted that the 6th respondent furnished false
details of employment as he neither reached academic Level 11 with
rationalized entry pay of Rs. 68,900/- nor did he reach academic Level 12 with
rationalized entry pay of Rs. 78,800/- as per the notification for Scheme of
Revisions of Pay of Teachers and Equivalent Cadre in Universities and Colleges
dated 02.11.2017. It is further submitted that the advertisement issued by the
respondent university for appointment to the post of Registrar is not in
conformity with the notification issued by the Government of India dated
02.11.2017 adopted by the UGC vide notification dated 18.06.2018 and the
appointment of the 6th respondent arising out of an erroneous advertisement is
unsustainable. It is further submitted that the length of service required for
promotion to the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) from the post of Lecturer and
from Senior Lecturer to the post of Assistant Professor and from Assistant
Professor to the post of Professor as per the AICTE Notification 2003 and 2010
and UGC Regulations is mandatory and no private institution or college or
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
university can promote any appointee to the higher post in violation of the
AICTE notification and UGC Regulation. It is further submitted that an earlier
writ petition was filed in WPA (P) 223 of 2023 challenging the appointment of
the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the University. However, the said writ
petition was dismissed in which the effect of the AICTE notification and UGC
Regulations were not considered and therefore the petitioner is entitled to
canvass such grounds in this writ petition. It is further submitted that the 6th
respondent is not qualified to apply for the post of Registrar as he has made a
wrong claim with regard to the details of employment experience as mentioned
in his e-application. It is further submitted that as could be seen from the said
application, the 6th respondent did not serve 15 years as Assistant Professor in
academic Level 11 and above or with 8 years of service in academic Level 12
and above.
3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to the notification dated
02.11.2017 wherein the minimum qualification for the post of Registrar has
been mentioned. It is further submitted that the 6th respondent belongs to
Level 10 in 2017 and he will not come under academic Level 11 or academic
Level 12 as per the said notification unless he fulfills the conditions for
promotion prescribed in the AICTE Regulations issued during 1999 and 2003.
It is further submitted that the private institutions cannot make any rules of its
own concerning appointment of teachers, scale of pay and length of service in
specific pay band and if there is any violation, the AICTE is entitled to withhold
or discontinue grants in respect of courses, or programmes to such technical
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
institutions which fails to comply with the directions of AICTE within the
stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for
ensuring the compliance of the direction of the Council. Therefore it is
submitted that an erroneous advertisement issued by the University will not
survive or create any right in favour of the applicant and that in terms of the
UGC Regulations, 2017, the 6th respondent is not eligible to hold the post of
Registrar as he has no experience of 15 years as Assistant Professor in
academic Level 11 and above or with 8 years of service in academic Level 12
and above including as Associate Professor along with the experience in
educational administration. Therefore it is submitted that the respondent
university or the state can enhance the qualifications, more than what is
prescribed by the AICTE or UGC but cannot dilute the conditions stipulated by
the AICTE/UGC.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has elaborately take us through
the notification issued by the UGC dated 02.11.2017 with particular reference
to the regulations concerning the appointment of Registrar of an University.
The learned Advocate has also referred to the application form submitted by
the 6th respondent while seeking for consideration to be appointed as Registrar
of the University to demonstrate that the 6th respondent did not possess the
requisite qualification for being consider for the appointment to the post of
Registrar. Further it is submitted that the 6th respondent has made fradulent
statement in the application and in the light of the declaration given by him in
the application, his appointment is liable to be summarily terminated.
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
5. With regard to the scope of judicial review, the learned Advocate placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Kannadasan
Versus Ajoy Khose and Others 1 . For the proposition that any benefit
obtained by way of fraud is a nullity and no right accrues out of the same
reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India Versus Ramesh Gandhi 2 . To support the contention, that the
regulations issued by the AICTE has a force of law and that the respondent
university cannot dilute the standard prescribed by the AICTE, reliance was
placed on the decision in Gelus Ram Sahu and Others Versus Dr. Surendra
Kumar Singh 3. For the same proposition that the respondent University is
not entitled to dilute the norms and standard prescribed by the AICTE, reliance
was placed on the decision in A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
and Another Versus Jai Bharath College of Management and Engineering
Technology and Others 4. With regard to the plea of res judicata, on account
of the dismissal of an earlier writ petition challenging the appointment of 6th
respondent, the learned Advocate for the petitioner by placing reliance on the
decision in the case of National Confederation of Officers Association of
Central Public Sector Enterprises and Others Versus Union of India and
Others 5 contended that when important issues of public interest are brought
before the court, the same should be adjudicated on merits and should not be
(2009) 7 SCC 1
(2012) 1 SCC 476
(2020) 4 SCC 484
(2021) 2 SCC 564
(2022) 4 SCC 764
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
rejected merely because the writ petition which was earlier filed was dismissed.
For the proposition that when there is any inconsistency or conflict between a
statutory provision and executive instructions, the former must be given effect,
reliance was placed on the decision in Employees' State Insurance
Corporation Versus Union of India and Others 6. On the above grounds, the
learned Advocates for the petitioner seeks for declaring the appointment of the
6th respondent as Registrar of the University as null and void and to issue a
writ of quo warranto against the 6th respondent.
6. Mr. Jaydip Kar, the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the
respondent 3, 5 and 6 referred to the advertisement issued by the respondent
university dated 07.12.2022 and submitted that the 6th respondent satisfies
the essential qualification prescribed in para 1(a)(ii) of the advertisement dated
07.12.2022. It is further submitted that pursuant to AICTE Regulation, 2010
as on the said date, the post of Lecturer was re-designated as Assistant
Professor and the 6th respondent who was holding the post of Senior Lecturer
at the relevant time, automatically stood re-designated as Assistant Professor.
In this regard, the learned Senior Advocate referred to the notification issued
by the AICTE dated January 22, 2010 and submitted that in terms of the said
notification persons entering teaching profession in technical institutions shall
be designated as Assistant Professor and shall be placed in the pay band of Rs.
15,600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 6000/-. Lecturers already in service in the pre-
revised-scale of Rs. 8000-13500 shall be re-designated as Assistant Professors
(2022) 11 SCC 392
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
with the AGP of Rs. 6000/-. It is submitted that the grounds canvassed by the
learned Advocate for the petitioner are all touching upon the 6th respondent
previous appointment and in this writ petition nothing has been stated with
regard to the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar which is
admittedly a non-teaching post. Further it is submitted that the advertisement
issued by the University dated 07.12.2022 is in accordance with the UGC
Regulations dated 02.11.2017 and the only difference is that instead of the
academic Level as mentioned in the notification, the pay scale has been
mentioned and therefore there is no error in the advertisement dated
07.12.2022. To draw a comparison, the learned Senior Advocate placed
reliance on the notification issued by the Bankura University dated 06.02.2023
and referred to the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Registrar
and submitted that the qualification mentioned therein is identical to the
advertisement issued by the respondent University dated 07.12.2022 which is
in accordance with the UGC Regulations. Further it is submitted that the
present writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the dismissal of the
earlier writ petition in WPA (P) 223 of 2023 wherein a writ of quo warranto was
sought for against the 6th respondent which was dismissed on merits and the
said writ petition being a public interest litigation, the decision is a judgment in
rem and the present writ petition is hit by the principles of res judicata. In
support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another Versus All India
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
Manufacturers Organisation and Others 7 . Further it is submitted that
though during the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the petitioner
had submitted that the 6th respondent has committed fraud there is absolutely
no pleading to the said effect in the writ petition and merely stating that fraud
has been committed would not be sufficient. With regard to the judgment in
the case of National Confederation of Officers Association of Central
Public Sector Enterprises and Others relied on by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner, it is submitted in the said case that an earlier petition filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution was summarily dismissed. In the case on
hand, the earlier public interest writ petition was adjudicated on merits and
dismissed and hence the present writ petition is barred by the principles of res
judicata. With the above submissions, learned senior Advocate prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in reply reiterated the
submissions made earlier and once again referred to the application form
submitted by the 6th respondent and the declaration which was signed by the
6th respondent. Further it is submitted that the post of the Registrar of
University is a very vital post and on account of the mis-representations, the
6th respondent has secured appointment and the same should be set aside.
8. We have elaborately heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
carefully perused the materials placed on record.
(2006) 4 SCC 683
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
9. The respondent University issued an advertisement dated 07.12.2022
inviting online applications from eligible Indian Nationals for recruitment to
various posts on direct recruitment basis. In this writ petition, we are
concerned about the post of Registrar of the respondent University. The
advertisement mentions the essential qualification for the said post which is as
hereunder:-
a. Essential Qualification
(i) Uniformly good academic record with a Master's Degree
with minimum 55% marks or its equivalent grade in the point
scale wherever a grading system is followed.
(ii) At least 15 years' of experience as Sr. Lecturer/Reader/
Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs. 7000/- and above or
with 8 year's of service in the AGP of Rs 8000/- and above
including as Associate Professor along with experience in
educational administration in Academic Institutions like
University, or in an institute of higher learning of which 5
(five) years must be in a University or in an Institute of Post
Graduate Study
OR
Comparable experience in research establishments and other
institutions of higher learning
OR
15 (Fifteen) years administrative experience, of which 8
years shall be as Deputy Registrar or equivalent post.
(iii) Age not less than 40 years. Relaxable in the case of
exceptionally qualified candidate.
b. Desirable Qualification
(i) A Doctorate Degree or published research work of merit.
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
(ii) High Level of administration experience in a Government
or Quasi Government organization or a good background in
administration and management in senior position.
(iii) Conversant with information Communication Technology
(ICT).
10. As could be seen from the above, an applicant is required to have a
uniformly good academic record with a Master Degree with a minimum 55%
marks or its equivalent rate in the point scale wherever the grading system is
followed. Clause (ii) of para 1(a) stipulates that the applicant should have at
least 15 years of experience as Senior Lecturer/Reader/Assistant Professor
in the AGP of Rs. 7000/- and above or with 8 year service in the AGP of Rs.
8000/- and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in
educational administration in academic institutions like university or in an
institute of higher learning of which 5 years must be in an university or in
an institute of Post Graduate study. The issue would be as to whether the
said essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 07.12.2022
is in consonance with the notification issued by the UGC. The Central
Government by notification dated 02.11.2017 has communicated to the UGC
stating that consequent to the Ministry's order dated 02.11.2017, the
minimum qualification for direct recruitment of Registrar/Finance
Officers/Controller of Examination shall be as follows:-
a) Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks or an
equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading
system is followed
b) b) At least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor
in the Academic Level 11 and above or with 8 years of
service in the Academic Level 12 and above including as
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
Associate Professor along with experience in educational
administration or
c) Comparable experience in research establishment and/
or other Institutions of higher education, or
d) 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years
shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.
11. A comparison of the essential qualification prescribed in the
advertisement dated 07.12.2022 with clause (b) of the qualification prescribed
by the Government of India shows that the same are identical. Further as per
the All India Counsel for Technical Educational (Pay Scales, Service
Conditions and Qualifications for Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 dated 22.01.2010, three
designations in respect of teachers, universities and colleges were notified as
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors. As per the revised pay
scales, service conditions and any other advancement scheme for teachers
and equivalent positions for Assistant Professor/Associate
Professor/Professors in technical institution, it was stipulated that the
persons entering teaching profession in technical institutions shall be
designated as Assistant Professor and shall be placed in the pay band of Rs.
15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 6000/-. Lecturers who are already in service in
pre-revised-scale of Rs. 8000-13500, shall be re-designated as Assistant
Professors with the said AGP of Rs. 6000/-. The details of employment
experience as given by the 6th respondent in the application/recruitment form
shows that the he was a Lecturer in the Bengal College of Engineering and
Technology in the pay band/scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 which was a
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
teaching post. Thereafter he was employed as a Senior Lecturer in Dr. B. C
Roy Engineering College, Durgapur in the pay band/scale of Rs. 10000-325-
15200. Subsequently as the Assistant Professor in Bengal Institute of
Technology and Management in the pay band/scale of Rs. 12000-420-18300
and thereafter as Professor as the head of department in Dr. B.C. Roy
Engineering College, Durgapur in the pay band/scale of pay of Rs. 37400-
67000 with grade pay of Rs. 10000/-. Thus, it could be seen that the 6th
respondent would fulfill the criteria as stipulated in the notification of the
AICTE Regulations dated 22.01.2010. In any event, the present public interest
writ petition cannot in any manner seeks to question the appointment of the
6th respondent as an Lecturer or the Assistant Professor as the writ petition
concerns the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the
respondent University. We need to bear in mind this important fact.
12. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that in the earlier public
interest litigation in WPA (P) 223 of 2023, the petitioner therein sought for
issuance of writ of quo warranto questioning the selection of the 6th
respondent as Registrar of the University. The case of the said writ petitioner
was based upon the stipulation in the AICTE Regulation dated 22.01.2010. It
was contended that a person entering the teaching profession in Universities
and Colleges shall be designated as Assistant Professors and shall be placed
in the pay of the Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 6000/-. Referring to the
credentials of the 6th respondent it was contended that he had entered the
service as lecturer in the Bengal College of Engineering and Technology in the
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
pay band of Rs. 8000-275-13500 and in terms of the AICTE Regulations dated
22.01.2010 the 6th respondent could not have drawn the AGP of Rs. 6000/-
as stipulated in the clause (a) of the notification issued by the AICTE dated
22.01.2010. The court considered the submission and rejected the same as it
was a wrong interpretation of the condition imposed in the AICTE Regulation,
2010. After taking note of the submission, the court held as follows:-
3. In our considered view, the case of the writ petitioner is a
wrong interpretation of the said condition imposed in the
Regulation 2010. For better appreciation, the said regulation is
quoted hereinbelow.
"(a) Assistant Professors/Professors Professor/Associate in
Technical institutions:-
(i) Persons entering the teaching profession in
Technical Institutions shall be designated as
Assistant Professors and shall be placed in
the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of
Rs.6000. Lecturers already in service in the
pre-revised scale of Rs.8000-13500, shall be
re-designated as Assistant Professors with the
said AGP of Rs.6000."
4) In terms of the above condition it is seen that lecturers
already in service in the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000-Rs.13500
shall be re-designated as Assistant Professors with the said
AGP of Rs.6000. Thus, the case of the writ petitioner is that the
private respondent could not have drawn the pay in the Pay
Band of Rs.8000-Rs.275-Rs. 13500 and such plea is outrightly
rejected. In any event, 2010 Regulation clearly protects the
existing employment, namely, the existing lecturers and their
post was re- designated as Assistant Professors. It also
recognizes the pay scale of Rs.8000- Rs.13500, pre revised in
the post of lecturers. Thus, we find that the private respondent
is fully eligible to hold the post of Registrar of the said
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
university and the petitioner has not made out any case for
interference.
5) It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the
fourth respondent that in the cause title the executive council of
the University has been shown to be represented by the Deputy
Registrar which is incorrect.
6) Since we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out
any case for interference, we decline to entertain the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
13. The substantial part of the arguments as advanced by the learned
Advocates for the petitioner is identical and similar to the contention which
was raised in the earlier writ petition. The question would be as to whether by
way of second public interest litigation, the self-same issues can be re-agitated.
Admittedly, the earlier writ petition was dismissed on merits.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Manufacturers
Organisation pointed out that the res judicata is the doctrine based on the
larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: (i) one being the maxim
nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (no one ought to be twice vexed
for one and the same cause) and second, public policy that there ought to be
an end to the same litigation. It was further pointed out that the main purpose
of the doctrine of res judicata is that once the matter has been determined in
the former proceeding, it should not be open to the parties to reagitate the
matter again and again.
15. The next question which arose was whether doctrine of res judicata, as
a matter of principle can be applied to the public interest litigations. After
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
referring to Explanation (vi) in Section 11 CPC and after taking note of the
decision in Forward Construction Company and Others Versus Prabhat
Mandal, Andheri and Others 8. It was held that Section 11 CPC applies to
public interest litigation as long as it is shown that the previous litigation was
in public interest and not by way of private grievances. Further, the previous
litigation has to be bonafide litigation in respect of a right which is common
and is agitated in common with others. Further, it was pointed out that in a
public interest litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but
represents the public at large as long as the litigation is bonafide, the judgment
in a previous public interest litigation would be a judgment in rem. It binds the
public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before
the court and raising any connected issue or an issue which had been raised
should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of public interest
litigation.
16. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned
decision applies with full force to the case on hand. There was no contention
raised about the bonafide of the earlier litigation namely WPA (P) 223 of
2023.In the said writ petition, which was the public interest litigation, prayer
was made to issue a writ of quo warranto against the 6th respondent and the
challenge was to his qualification qua the AICTE Regulation/UGC Regulations.
The matter was considered on merits and the writ petition was dismissed by
order dated 05.06.2023. The said order has become final. Therefore, a second
(1986) 1 SCC 100
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
writ petition for the very same relief is not maintainable more so when the
grounds raised in the present writ petition also touches upon the
eligibility/qualification of the 6th respondent. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to have a piece-meal challenge of the appointment of the 6th
respondent on the ground that certain grounds ought to have been raised in
the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is clearly barred by
the principles of res judicata.
17. The learned Advocate for the appellant would strenuously contend that
the 6th respondent has played fraud and that fraud vitiates every solemn act.
Unfortunately, there was no specific pleading of fraud raised in the writ petition
qua the qualifications for the post of Registrar.
18. In Lazarus Estates Limited Versus Beasley 9 it was held that fraud
unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly
pleaded and proved but once proved it vitiates judgments, contracts,
transactions etc. This decision was referred to by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ram Preeti Yadav Versus UP Board of High School 10
19. The argument that the advertisement issued by the respondent
University dated 07.12.2022 is not in consonance with the notification of the
UGC/AICTE is also incorrect which we have dealt with in the preceding
paragraphs. Therefore we find that there is no dilution of the essential
qualifications prescribed by the AICTE or by the UGC. As a matter of fact the
(1956) 1 All. E.R 341
(2003) Supp (3) SCR 352
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
Bankura University has also adopted the same qualification in its
advertisement dated 06.02.2023 and consequently the decisions relied on by
the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the AICTE Regulations has the
force of a statute, which is a well settled principle, cannot in any manner assist
the case of the writ petitioner as we have found that there is no inconsistency
between the advertisement issued by the respondent University with that of the
AICTE/Regulations.
20. As pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents 3, 5 and 6 the decision in the case of National Confederation of
Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises and Others is
distinguishable on facts as in the said case show that the earlier writ petition
which was filed as a public interest writ petition was summarily dismissed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a second writ petition was filed seeking for
various reliefs. In the said decision, it was pointed out that the principles of res
judicata and constructive res judicata, which Section 11 of CPC embodies have
been applied to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, including public interest
litigation. After taking note of the decision in the case of Rural Litigation and
Entitlement Kendra Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 11 and the decision in
Daryao Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and the decision in the case of All
India Manufacturers Organisation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out
that while determining the applicability of the principles of res judicata under
1989 Supp (1) SCC 504
AIR 1961 SC 1457
WPA (P) 302 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
Section 11 of CPC, the court must be conscious that grave issues of public
interest are not lost in the woods merely because a petition was initially filed
and dismissed, without a substantial adjudication on merits. In the case on
hand, the earlier public interest writ petition was wholly based on the
qualification which the 6th respondent possess and the challenge to his
appointment to the post of Registrar of University was based on his
qualification in the teaching posts hold earlier, and the present writ petition
has been founded on the very same set of facts except for vague allegations of
fraud. To be noted that use of the expression "fraud" would not make an
exercise fraudulent. The allegations of fraud being a serious allegation, the
onus is on the person making the allegation to substantiate the same in the
manner known to law. In the instant case, apart from lack of pleadings of fraud
the allegation is absolutely vague and unsubstantiated.
21. For all the above reasons, we find no grounds to entertain the writ
petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
I Agree.
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.)
(P.A. SACHIN)
