Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Ashok Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 July, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 317 of 2022
Dr. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Professor Vijay Pal Singh, aged about 67
years, Vice Chancellor, R/o Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya Surguja
Campus, District : Surguja (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja, Ambikapur, School Road,
Guru Nanak Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
3. Dr. Rohini Prasad, S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Prasad, aged about 60
years, Vice-Chancellor, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya,
Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
and
Writ Appeal No. 321 of 2022
Dr. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Professor Vijay Pal Singh, aged about 67
years, Vice Chancellor, R/o Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya Surguja
Campus, District : Surguja (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chancellor, Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Address-
Chancellor Office at Raj Bhawan, Civil Line, Raipur, Fax No. 91-
7712331108 [email protected], District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Commissioner Surguja Division, Surguja, Ambikapur, School Road,
Guru Nanak Chowk, Ambikapur, [email protected],
District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh
4. The Vice-Chancellor Cum Commissioner Sant Gahira Guru
Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, Sarguja Email-
[email protected], District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
5. Dr. Rohini Prasad, S/o Late Shri Raghuveer Prasad, aged about 60
years, Professor, R/o FCI Colony, New Changorabhatha, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate
General.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Dharmnarayan Dubey, Advocate
along with Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
06.07.2022
Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for
respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dharmnarayan Dubey, learned counsel,
appearing for respondent No. 5 along with Mr. Hemant Gupta.
2. I.A. No.2 of 2022 in W.A. No. 321 of 2022 is an application seeking
grant of leave to prefer appeal against the Judgment dated 13.06.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.973 of 2020. It
is to be noted that by the aforesaid judgment dated 13.06.2022, another
writ petition, being Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020, was disposed of. I.A.
No.2 of 2022 is an application seeking grant of leave to prefer appeal
against the very same judgment in Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020. Both
the writ petitions were filed by Dr. Rohini Prasad, who had taken charge
as Vice-Chancellor of Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, for
short "the University" on 11.07.2017. The appellant was not a party
respondent in the writ proceedings.
3. The State Government being satisfied that a situation had arisen in
which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in
accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya
Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, 'the Adhiniyam, 1973'), without detriment to
the interest of the University and that it was expedient in the interest of
the University so to do, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 52 of the the Adhiniyam, 1973, the State Government had
directed by notification dated 03.01.2020 that the provisions of Sections
13, 14, 23 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 shall,
subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule, apply from
the date of publication of the notification with immediate effect to the
University. It is to be noted that an enquiry report dated 24.12.2019 was
submitted by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division with regard to the
affairs of the University.
4. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under modified
Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the
Chancellor of the University and in consultation with the State
Government, issued a Notification dated 06.01.2020, whereby, the
incumbent Vice-Chancellor, namely, Dr. Rohini Prasad, respondent No. 5
herein was removed from the office of the Vice-Chancellor with
immediate effect.
5. By another Notification dated 06.01.2020, the Chancellor had
appointed Commissioner, Sarguja Division as the Vice-Chancellor of the
University with immediate effect until further orders.
6. In Writ Petition (S) No.180 of 2020, challenge is made to the
Notification dated 03.01.2020 and in Writ Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020,
challenge is made to the Notification dated 06.01.2020 and enquiry report
dated 24.12.2019. The learned Single Judge by the Judgment dated
13.06.2022 had allowed both the writ petitions by quashing the
Notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 and the enquiry report
dated 24.12.2019. However, without granting back-wages, the petitioner
was held to be entitled to all other benefits notionally.
7. It appears that an advertisement dated 30.12.2020 was issued for
filling up of the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University and pursuant
thereto, the appellant herein came to be appointed as the Vice-
Chancellor by an order dated 02.08.2021. In the said order of
appointment, it was categorically mentioned that his appointment was
subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020 and Writ
Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020. The appellant had accepted the said
position and did not take any steps to implead himself in the writ
proceedings in order to protect his interest, as there was always the
possibility that an order prejudicial to his interest may be passed in such
proceedings.
8. When the appellant has chosen to remain a spectator during the
course of the proceedings, we are of the opinion that no case is made out
to grant leave to appeal.
9. The decision cited by Mr. Paranjpe in the case of J.S. Yadav v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Another , reported in (2011) 6 SCC 570 to
impress upon the Court that no order can be passed behind the back of a
person adversely affecting him and that if such an order is passed the
same is required to be ignored, is not applicable in the instant case.
10. No order has been passed by the learned Single Judge setting
aside the order of appointment of the appellant. What is of significance is
that the appointment order of the appellant had itself contained a
condition that his appointment will be subject to the result of the writ
petitions.
11. In that view of the matter, I.A. Nos. 2 of 2022 in W.A. No.317 of
2022 and I.A. No.02 of 2022 in W.A. No. 321 of 2022 are dismissed.
12. Resultantly, the writ appeals stand dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
