Delhi High Court
Dr. Meenakshi Gupta vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 20 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* 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No.6799/2013 which was withdrawn after arguments because no case was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withdrawn.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
