Ashutosh Mishra vs University Grants Commission & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6698 Del

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Judgment delivered on: 11.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 6443/2013

ASHUTOSH MISHRA                                               ... Petitioner

                             versus


UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Bharat Bhushan
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Naresh Kaushik with Mr Amitesh Mishra and
                               Ms Amita Singh Kalkal
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr Amitesh Kumar

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been styled as a petition for quo warranto

challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 4 (Dr Rajbir Singh) to the

post of Director, Consortium for Educational Communication, Delhi. The

Memorandum of Association and Rules of the said Consortium for

Educational Communication (CEC), 2001 deals with several aspects,

including the functions and powers of the Director. Rule 49 (c) of the said

Rules reads as under:-

"49. Functions and Powers of the Director

(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(c) The Director of the Consortium will be an eminent Media person/ academician appointed by the President of the Council on the recommendation of a Search Committee. The President of the Council shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of at least three eminent Media persons/ academicians, out of which one person will be Chairperson of Governing Board."

2. It is evident from the above that the only requirement for a person to be

appointed as a Director of the CEC is that he should be an eminent media

person or an academician and he should be appointed by the President of the

Council on the recommendation of a Search Committee. The President of the

Council is required to constitute a Search Committee consisting of at least

three eminent media persons or academicians, out of which one person would

be the Chairperson of Governing Board. There is no grievance with regard to

the constitution of the Search Committee nor with regard to the

recommendation made by the Search Committee. The only grievance is that

the respondent No. 4 is not an academician. Admittedly, the respondent

No. 4 is not an eminent media person and the only question is whether the

respondent No. 4 is an academician or not. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 is not an academician inasmuch as his

appointment as a Professor, Mass Communication, Institute of Mass

Communication and Media Technology at the Kurukshetra University,

Kurukshetra, was void. He also submits that the Ph.D (Education) degree,

which the respondent No. 4 holds, is also not valid. However, there is an

extremely important link missing in this argument and that is that neither the

Ph.D degree of the respondent No. 4 has, at any time, been challenged by the

petitioner nor has the appointment of the respondent No. 4 been challenged as

a Professor of the Kurukshetra University. Interestingly, according to the

learned counsel for the UGC, the petitioner's wife was working as an

Assistant Professor at the Institute of Mass Communication and Media

Technology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, where the respondent No.

4 was a Director/ Professor. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for

the petitioner. This circumstance also belies the alleged public interest which

the petitioner had in filing the present writ petition.

3. In any event, the present writ for quo warranto does not merit any

further consideration inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to show as

to how the respondent No. 4 was ineligible to be appointed as the Director of

the CEC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have

clearly indicated that the respondent No. 4 is an academician and was

appointed by the President of the Council on the recommendation of a validly

constituted Search Committee. The respondent No. 4 has the authority to

occupy the office of the Director, CEC.

4. Consequently, the writ petition is without any merit. The same is

dismissed with costs of ` 50,000/-. The costs be deposited with the Delhi

Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 11, 2014 SR