DEENANATH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We heard Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1; Shri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Monika Pant, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would submit that respondent No. 8 has been selected to be appointed as Chancellor and the order of appointment of respondent No. 8 is yet to be issued. He would point out that due to non appointment of Chancellor, the affairs of the University has come to a standstill and the selection of 8th respondent had come to a halt in view of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 20th June, 2018.

(3.) Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that actually the 8th respondent is a Member of the Board of Management of the University and, therefore, his selection falls foul of Clause 24 of the Memorandum of Association. Secondly, it is submitted that no advertisement was issued as was done in the year 2013 before the selection was made. He would lastly also submit that being a Member of the Board of Management, the 8th respondent is to be treated as a Member of the Society and, therefore, his selection falls foul under Clause 24. Shri M.C. Pant would further also submit that consent of the 8th respondent has not been obtained.