P K SHARMA Vs. MOTI LAL NEHRU COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sh.P.K.Sharma has been working as Reader in the Department of Economics, Moti Lal Nehru college (Evening), University of Delhi. By the accompanied petition he has challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee which selected the Vice Principal and Incharge of the Evening Classes of the college. It is his case that respondent No.3 Dr.Ratnakar Pandey was the Principal of the college. He had been nominated or elected as Member Parliament. He remained Member Rajya Sabha till 4.7.92. Being Member Parliament, he could not during his tenure as Member participate in the selection process nor could have selected the respondent No.2. The proceedings of the Selection Committee on account of participation of respondent No.3 became illegal. Respondent No.3 could have acted as the Principal of the College for giving education/ teaching, but after becoming Member Parliament could not discharge administrative functions. As per Resolution No.636 respondent No.3 could not hold administrative responsibilities/functions and thus could not have been participated in the Selection process. Thus the constitution of the Selection Committee and the selection process on account of participation of respondent No.3 stood vitiated. Hence the selection of respondent No.2 became illegal. Moreover, respondent No.2 has been keeping lien as Lecturer in his institute i.e. Desh Bandhu Gupta College. Had the respondent No.3 not participated in the selection, the petitioner being the senior most of this college would have been selected. But the respondent No.3 with ulterior motive to serve his own purpose selected respondent No.2.

(2.) By this application, the petitioner wants the respondent No.2 be stopped from holding the office and be removed from the college and that status quo ante be ordered. This application has been contested by the respondents .1 to 4. It is their plea that respondent No.2 was selected about two years back and since then has been working as Vice Principal and Incharge of the Evening Classes. Now if the interim relief as prayed for is granted, it would seriously deteriorate the functioning of the college. Moreover, without adjudicating the grounds raised in the writ petition, if the interim prayer of status quo ante is ordered, it would amount to accepting the writ petition itself. Even otherwise the petitioner is estopped from challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee. It was this very Selection Committee consisting of respondent No.3 which selected the petitioner as Reader.

(3.) I have heard the petitioner in person, Mr.S.K.Luthra for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.B.K.Kaul for respondent No. 5. So far as the question of grant of status quo ante is concerned, the petitioner contended that even after two and a half years this Court can do so. Delay itself is no ground to reject the prayer. In this regard he has placed relaince on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Cable JCo. Ltd. v. Sm.Sumitra Chakraborty reported in 1989 CWN page 559, where the court observed that :- " Mere delay in filing the suit cannot obviously have the effect of putting a premium to wrongful acts so as to allow the wrongdoer to reap the benefit of his act till the suit is finally disposed of. If the status quo has been changed or altered by a wrongful act the court should not be hesitant to exercise its power to restore the status quo ante even at the interlocutory stage by an order of mandatory injunction simply because the status quo ante at the date of filing of the suit is different from what it was before,"