KRIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking Public Interest jurisdiction seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) We heard Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the University/respondent no. 6.

(3.) It is submitted that the fifth respondent, who is shown as a member of the Public Service Commission, was selected, even though it is in violation of Article 316 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent is working as an Assistant Professor in the sixth respondent-University, and yet she has been made a member of the Public Service Commission. The appointment of the fifth respondent took place by order dated 27.08.2013. It is submitted that this appointment falls foul of the requirement under Article 316 of the Constitution of India. There is a further case that amounts are due from the fifth respondent to the sixth respondentUniversity by way of rent. Rent is due for occupying the quarters belonging to the sixth respondent-University. We have already noticed the reliefs which are sought in this writ petition.