Bheem Raj Patel vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 758 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10244/2020

1. Bheem Raj Patel S/o Shri Kannaji Patel, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Warden Quarter, Rajasthan Patel Hostel, Near Shobhagpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Hemraj Singh Chaudhary S/o Shri Digamber Singh Chaudhary, Aged About 40 Years, Residing At 231, Jyoti Colony, Glass Factory, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Department Of College Education, Block-IV, Dr. S. Radha Krishan Shiksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Through Its Vice Chancellor, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Registrar, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Kuldeep Mathur



                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

12/01/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 05.09.2020, issued by the respondent

No.2 - Vice Chancellor, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, whereby a

committee of five members to examine the selection procedure on

the post of Assistant Director of Physical Education qua the four

issues mentioned therein, has been constituted.

(2 of 6) [CW-10244/2020]

2. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioners argued

that the petitioners were selected after following the due process

by a committee constituted by the Board of Management of the

University and the Vice Chancellor, in his administrative capacity,

cannot sit over their appointment sans approval of the Board of

Management.

3. He emphasised that after selection by the select committee,

petitioners' appointment orders were issued after approval of the

Board of Management, hence, any enquiry questioning their

selection, if deemed necessary, can be ordered by the Board of

Management.

4. It was informed that the same complainant, namely Shri

Surendra Singh Chouhan, has preferred a writ petition, being S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1755/2020, which is pending consideration

before this Court and interim order was refused, whereafter he

has filed hordes of complaints before different authorities such as

Vice Chancellor; Lokayukt; Governor; Chief Minister etc., simply

with a view to frustrate petitioners' rights.

5. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Vice Chancellor

does not have any power to interfere in the selection process,

particularly when it has attained finality.

6. In support of the argument, Mr. Nahar read Section 12 of the

Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to

as "the Act of 1962"), which prescribes powers and duties of the

Vice Chancellor, so also Section 20 of the Act of 1962, which

prescribes duties and function of the Board. He argued that a

conjoint reading of both the provisions makes it clear that the

committee in question was required to be constituted by the Board

(3 of 6) [CW-10244/2020]

of Management and the order of the Vice Chancellor is without

jurisdiction.

7. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, at the outset, submitted that the present petition is

premature as no prejudicial action has yet been taken against the

petitioners. It was also argued by Mr. Mathur that the committee

ordered to be constituted by the Vice Chancellor vide the order

impugned dated 05.09.2020, has been constituted merely for the

purpose of conducting a fact finding enquiry, with a view to

ascertain the requisite facts in order to respond to various

authorities, including High Court in the pending litigation.

8. While informing that the fact finding committee had also

given opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and sought their

response before furnishing the report, learned counsel argued that

even the principles of natural justice have duly been followed by

the committee.

9. Having argued this, Mr. Mathur fairly contended that the fact

finding report has been considered by the Board of Management in

its meeting dated 28.11.2020 and no action has been taken

against the petitioners in view of the interim order dated

2.11.2020.

10. He further assured that the report so furnished by the

committee shall be placed before the Board of Management and

any action, if deemed necessary, shall be taken only after the

same is examined and approved by the Board of Management.

11. Mr. Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioners during the

course of rejoinder submissions invited Court's attention towards

agenda No. C-3 of the minutes of meeting dated 28.11.2020 of

(4 of 6) [CW-10244/2020]

the Board of Management of the University and pointed out that in

the matter of regularisation of Dr. Dipendra Singh Chouhan, the

Board of Management has resolved to constitute a fact finding

committee of four members. Having brought these facts to the

notice of the Court, he argued that what was so different in the

present case, that the Vice Chancellor himself constituted a fact

finding committee, even before the matter was placed before the

Board of Management!

12. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment dated 26.02.2019,

passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Jain Vs.

State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2288/2019) dated

26.02.2019.

13. Heard.

14. Considering the stand taken by the respondent - University

that the report furnished by the committee has been laid before

the Board of Management and any action, if deemed expedient,

shall be taken only after approval of the Board of Management,

this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition.

15. So far as Mr. Nahar's argument in relation to power to

constitute a committee in light of Section 12 & 20 of the Act of

1962 is concerned, suffice it to say that the Vice Chancellor being

executive head of the University does have power to appoint a fact

finding committee, particularly when the matter is to be reported

to various authorities including High Court. If the Vice Chancellor,

in his opinion, has deemed it appropriate to elicit requisite facts

before the matter is to be placed before the Board of

Management, this Court does not find such exercise to be without

jurisdiction, particularly in view of the stand of the University that

(5 of 6) [CW-10244/2020]

the report of the committee which has been provided in a sealed

envelope shall be placed before the Board of Management for

consideration and any action, if deemed necessary shall be taken

only after due consideration and approval by the Board.

16. Neither any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by

the fact finding inquiry so ordered by the University, nor the

constitution of committee is beyond the powers of Vice Chancellor.

17. In the opinion of this Court, the judgment of Jaipur Bench of

this Court in Raj Kumar Jain's (supra) is clearly distinguishable on

facts, inasmuch as in the case of Raj Kumar Jain (Supra), the

Selection Board and Syndicate have duly approved the selection of

the candidates therein, however, the Chancellor of the University

refused to accord appointment order to the petitioners, for which

this Court intervened and held that the Chancellor cannot sit over

the selection and recommendation made by the Selection

Committee, once they have been approved by the Syndicate.

18. As against this, in the present case, the petitioners have duly

been appointed and are continuing as such. However, consequent

to a subsequent complaint, the Vice Chancellor has constituted the

committee. It is a fresh stage altogether.

19. As a matter of fact, the Vice Chancellor, in the present case,

has not taken away any of petitioners' rights so far. Merely

because a fact finding inquiry has been ordered, the petitioners

cannot claim parity with the enunciation made by this Court in Raj

Kumar Jain's case (supra).

20. None of the petitioners rights have been infracted, hence I

do not find it to be a case worth warranting interference.

(6 of 6) [CW-10244/2020]

21. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

22. Interim order dated 2.11.2020 is hereby vacated; stay

petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 65-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)