E MURALIDHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Dr. E. Muralidharan, the petitioner appearing in person Mr. K.M. Venugopal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent Union of India Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. Karthik Mukundan for respondents 2 and 4 and Mr. R. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the records.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the authority of the second respondent to hold the post of the Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (for short, 'I.I.T.(M)'). When the matter came up for admission, it was placed before a Division Bench treating it as a public interest litigation. However, the Division Bench, by its order dated 17.12.2007, observed as follows:-''As the matter relates to appointment of the Director of I.I.T. Madras, it cannot be termed to be ''Public Interest Litigation''. However, it is open for the petitioner to confine the prayer for issuance of a writ of quo warranto as an adversary litigation.Let the matter be placed as a general writ petition before appropriate Court after necessary orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice".

(3.) THOUGH the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the I.I.T.(M) submitted that they intend to prefer a SLP against the order of the Division Bench, no such proof was forthcoming. Further, since the Division Bench had also fixed a time limit for disposal of the writ petition, parties were directed to address arguments on the merits of the case, which they were kind enough to do.