(1.) The first petitioner herein is the Secretary of Shree Charotar Education Society, Anand, which is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, running various educational institutions in and around Anand. The second petitioner is the Principal of Bhikhabhai Patel Arts Coege, Anand and is a member of the Senate of Sardar Patel University (respondent No.1). The petitioners are aggrieved by the Resolution No.6 dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Syndicate of the respondent No.1-University selecting and appointing the respondent No.2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty.
(2.) I have heard Shri Shirish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mitul K.Shelat. learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have gone through the material on record. Shri Shirish Joshi has submitted that the Sardar Patel University has been established under the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the appointment,election or selection of the authorities and officers of the said University are governed by the provisions made under the Act and the Statute and Ordinances made thereunder. Any appointment, election or selection made in breach of the provisions of the Act or Statute would be ultra vires and void. According to him, the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Act and Statute and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside and a direction should be issued to the respondent-University to declare the petitioner No.2 as having been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty for a period of three years with effect from 9.12.2003 to 8.12.2006. He further submits that vide Resolution No.6 of the Syndicate of the respondent University dated 18.11.2003 the respondent No.2 was selected and appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty of the said University. In fact, the petitioner No.2 was a Principal whereas the respondent No.2 was a senior lecturer of an affiliated college and, therefore, the petitioner No.2 was more eligible and should have been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty. Referring to the Resolution No.6 dated 18.11.2003, Mr.Shirish Joshi has argued that since it was resolved that the bio data of senior teachers should be invited and verified by a committee nominated by the Vice-Chancellor and should be placed with the recommendations of the Committee before the Syndicate, this procedure should have been followed while appointing the Dean of the Arts Faculty and the bio data of the petitioner No.2 should have been called for and submitted in the manner that has been resolved. The Rules in vogue have not been followed or made applicable during the appointment of the Dean. Had the rule referred to in Resolution No.6 been followed, then the petitioner No.2, who is a Principal and better qualified than the respondent No.2, who is a Lecturer, would have been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty instead of the respondent No.2.
(3.) Per contra, Mr.Mitul K.Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has argued that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated so as to entitle him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, there is no violation of any provisions of the Act or Statute. The petitioner No.1 is a Trust and, therefore, it cannot be said that it had any fundamental right for the appointment of petitioner No.2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty of the respondent University. According to Mr.Mitul K.Shelat, on the one hand, the petitioners are praying for quashing of Resolution No.6 dated 18.11.2003 and on the other, are seeking relief under the same Resolution, inasmuch as they are seeking enforcement of only one part of the Resolution and praying for quashing of the other part of the Resolution, which is contradictory and untenable. Since the selection and appointment of the Dean suffers from no statutory or legal infirmity, the same deserves to be upheld and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.