R NATARAJAN Vs. PROF ARUN NIGAVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for a writ of Quo Warranto to direct the first respondent to show cause by what authority the first respondent/the Chairman of the University Grants Commission claims to have, use and enjoy and perform the duties, privileges of the said office.

(2.) THE petitioner holds a doctoral degree in Bio Chemistry granted by the Texas A & M University, U.S.A. He was qualified to be appointed as the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.). According to him, the first respondent was ineligible to hold the post of Chairman of the U.G.C. and his appointment was in gross violation of the statutory provisions. According to the petitioner, the post was to fall vacant on 6.4.2002 in view of the retirement of the then incumbent. THE petitioner understands that on 14.3.2002, a Search Committee consisting of Shri.Venkat Subramaniam, Member, Planning Commission, Shri.R.A.Mashelkar, DG CSIR and Dr.G.C.Pande, Chairman, Indian Institute of Administrative Service (IIAS) was constituted for the purpose of recommending persons from whom one would be appointed as the Chairman of U.G.C. THE Search Committee recommended the names of the first respondent who was the then Vice-Chairman and Dr.V.N.R.Rajasekar Pillai together with the name of Prof.H.P.Dikshit. In the communication on 6.4.2002, the Chairman is said to have consulted the then Law Minister and had told him that there was no bar for appointing the first respondent as the Chairman, but he cannot be given the full term of five years and that he can be given only a term of 3" years, after deducting his term of incumbency as the Vice Chairman. It is further stated that on 10.4.2002, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, had sought for certain clarifications regarding the qualification of the first respondent before it was sent to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for approval. Finally, by notification dated 16.7.2002, the first respondent was appointed as the Chairman of the U.G.C.

(3.) IT is further stated that the appointment is made only after due approval of the Appointments Committee at the highest level. The Ministry of Law had given its opinion regarding the appointment of the respondent. IT is further stated that the writ petition has been filed with mala fide intention and the petitioner had reproduced various Government notings and had annexed documents in the petition which are part of confidential records of the second respondent. The petitioner cannot have any access to such official documents which are confidential in nature. There is no disqualification as alleged by the petitioner.