Delhi High Court
Dhanraj Poswal vs University Of Delhi And Others on 7 December, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.11585/2016 and C.M. Nos.45631/2016 (stay) &
45632/2016 (exemption)
% 7th December, 2016
DHANRAJ POSWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Rathee, Advocate.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shikhar Saha, Advocate with Mr.
Santosh Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Advocate with
Mr. Avanish Rathi, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate with Ms.
Seema Dolo, Advocate and Ms.
Surbhi Mehta, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Court has tried its level best while reading this petition so
as to at least understand as to what is the legal cause of action which is
pleaded in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
W.P. (C) No.11585/2016 Page 1 of 4
India for the reliefs as claimed in this writ petition. The reliefs claimed in
this writ petition read as under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or of any other nature thereby restraining
the respondent No.3 from recruiting any new employee and or promoting
employees of Ramjas College against the examination conducted by him from
16.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 and also thereby directing the respondent No.1 and 2
to handover the examination process for recruitment and promotion of
employees of Ramjas college to some independent Govt. agency.
Pass any other relief or remedy which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. Effectively the reliefs claimed are for restraining the
respondent no. 3/Principal of Ramjas College from recruiting new
employees or promoting existing employees against the examination to be
conducted from 16.11.2016 to 25.11.2016.
3. At the outset, it may be noted that the same petitioner had
earlier filed an almost identical writ petition being W.P. (C) No.
11029/2016, and which had come up a few days before this Court, and
which was allowed to be withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh petition
giving a legal cause of action which is complete in law, however, this writ
petition has been filed not only concealing the factum of the earlier writ
petition having been filed and what was the earlier order passed in the
earlier writ petition and also without pleading a legally complete cause of
action which is required. Counsel for the petitioner concedes that earlier a
W.P. (C) No.11585/2016 Page 2 of 4
writ petition was filed and there is no mentioning of the same in the present
writ petition nor is the order dated 23.11.2016 filed by which the earlier writ
petition was withdrawn with a specific liberty to file a new petition only on
pleading a legally complete cause of action. At this stage, copy of the
earlier writ petition W.P. (C) No.11029/2016, has been given to the Court
by the counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/UGC. A copy of that writ
petition W.P.(C) No.11029/2016 has been perused by this Court and it is
found that the present writ petition is nothing but a rehash of the earlier writ
petition being W.P. (C) No.11029/2016. The order dated 23.11.2016 by
which W.P. (C) No.11029/2016 was withdrawn reads as under:-
"This writ petition is disposed of as not pressed as there is a complete lack of
factual averments of the cause of action for seeking the relief of cancellation of
the examination, and therefore, counsel for the petitioner, as prayed for, is
allowed to withdraw the present writ petition to file a writ petition containing
complete facts of causes of action with the reliefs to be claimed."
4. If in a writ petition promotions of the persons are challenged,
then, it has to be challenged by pleading which is the rule of promotion,
how that rule of promotion is violated, how the examinations are being
conducted in violation of the rules etc etc. Except bland and general
averments, no legal cause of action is pleaded in the writ petition as to
which is the rule of promotion which is being violated for promoting
various persons. Also, the necessary parties i.e the affected persons who
have been promoted have not been made parties to this writ petition. There
W.P. (C) No.11585/2016 Page 3 of 4
is a general averment in the writ petition that question papers and answer
papers are being given in advance, but, I fail to understand as to how this Court
can believe such type of bland self-serving averments which have a far
reaching impact and consequences without the same in any manner being
substantiated.
5. It is therefore clear that the petitioner is indulging in repeated
litigations which are an abuse of process of law. Facts
with respect to earlier
writ petition being filed and order passed thereon have been concealed. There
are no better and legally complete averments as to how a legal cause of action
is made out for claiming the reliefs in this writ petition. Affected parties have
not been made parties to the writ petition. Bland averments are made of
cheating etc, without in any manner substantiating the same.
6. In view of the above, this writ petition being wholly
misconceived because it lacks in material particulars of existence of a legally
complete cause of action, non-mentioning of the relevant rules and how they
are violated is not stated in the writ petition, writ petition is hit by non-joinder
of necessary parties etc etc. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
DECEMBER 07, 2016/ Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
