C.S.MUSTHAFFA Vs. J.PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire controversy relates to the one and only issue whether the 1st respondent Dr. J. Prasad, Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (in short Sanskrit University) had L.L.B. degree as claimed by him. It is an undisputed fact, as revealed from the records, that the 1st respondent was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University for a term of 4 years with effect from 09/12/2008. The writ petitioner herein is a Class IV employee working in the very same University of which the 1st respondent is the Vice-Chancellor. According to the writ petitioner, the 1st respondent, who is occupying a reputed post, i.e. of the Vice-Chancellor of University, has claimed false degree by fabricating L.L.B. certificate. Therefore, it is a serious issue so far as the interest of the public at large, as such person is not entitled to continue as Vice-Chancellor of a reputed University.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the claim of the 1st respondent is that he joined LL.B. three year course in the academic year 1985-88 at Government Law College, Calicut under the University of Calicut. But the mark list and the provisional certificate submitted by him would indicate that he appeared for examination between 2004-06 and there is no connectivity between academic year 1985-88 and the dates of examination he appeared for. Therefore, the provisional certificate submitted by him, that too without seal and date, are highly suspicious, and hence the irresistible conclusion is that it is a fabricated document. To substantiate his claim, he also relies upon the correspondence made between him and the College wherein the Vice-Chancellor had under taken the LL.B. course, under RTI, which confirmed his suspicion about genuineness of the LL.B. degree obtained by the 1st respondent.

(3.) As against this, the 1st respondent by detailed counter-affidavit brought on record several facts pertaining to the strained relationship between the petitioner and the respondent on account of departmental enquiry launched against the petitioner at the instance of 1st respondent herein. According to the 1st respondent, it is nothing but a private interest litigation and on account of personal vendetta of the petitioner against the 1st respondent for initiating disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct. Ever since initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner, the petitioner is intimidating him by various means including writing letters, telegraphic messages and holding threats against the 1st respondent that unless the 1st respondent heeds to the illegal demands of the petitioner, he would trouble him by various actions which would bring ill-reputation to the 1st respondent.