ASHUTOSH MISHRA Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(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:-

(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.