AJAY Vs. KULADHIPATI, DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashment of the Notification dated 04.12.2015 by which a Committee for appointment of Kulpati of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore has been constituted, by the Kuladhipati while exercising the powers under Section 13 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 [for short "the Adhiniyam"].

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 10.08.2015, a vacany for the post of Kulpati arose due resignation of Professor Dr. D.P. Singh Kulpati of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore [for short "DAVV, Indore"]. Thereafter, the procedure for the appointment for post of Kulpati started. In the meanwhile, the Kuladhipati appointed Dr. Ashutosh Mishra as acting Kulpati until the appointment of Kulpati. That on 27.08.2015 an advertisement inviting the applications for the post of Kulpati was published in the news papers. In response to the advertisement, Dr. P.K. Gupta, Professor Institute of Management Studies, DAVV, Indore (Respondent No.3) and Dr. Ganesh Kavdiya, Professor and Head of School of Economics, DAVV, Indore submitted their applications on 07.09.2015 and 30.09.2015 respectively. As per the Provisions of Section 13(2) of the Adhiniyam, for the appointment of Kulpati, the Kuladhipati has to constitute a Committee consisting of 3 persons, namely, (i) one person elected by the Executive Council; (ii) one person nominated by Chairman of University Grants Commission; and (iii) one person nominated by the Kuladhipati. That on 26.11.2015 a meeting was convened for electing a Member by Executive Council. Twelve Members including respondent No.3 & 4 participated in the meeting, which was presided by acting Kulpati Dr. Ashutosh Mishra. In the meeting names of 4 persons, namely, Shri Ajay Chordiya (petitioner) Ex Member Executive Council of Rajiv Gandhi Praudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal and Awadhesh Pratap Vishwavidyala, Rewa; Professor R.P.Tiwari, Kulpati, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Kendriya Vishwavidyalaya; Shri Gulab Sharma (Respondent No.5) retired District Judge, and Professor Rajpal Singh were considered. That in the meeting unanimous decision could not be taken. Looking to the circumstances Dr.K.K.Tiwari withdrew the name of Professor Rajpal Singh. Thereafter, a secret voting was adopted but Acting Kulpati didnot participated in the voting. Out of 10 votes, Shri Gulab Sharma got 6 votes; Professor R.P.Tiwari got 2 votes and Shri Ajay Chordiya also got 2 votes. Thus, on the basis of the voting, Shri Gulab Sharma was elected by the Executive Council. Thereafter, the Kuladhipati constituted a committee consisting of 3 persons including Shri Gulab Sharma. In this regard a notification was issued on 04.12.2015. The said Committee was directed to recommend a Panel of not less than 3 persons for appointment of Kulpati of DAVV, Indore.

(3.) The stand of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 being member of Executive Council, have participated in the election process as there is no provision in the Adhiniyam and Rules which prohibits the aspirants for the post of Kulpati, from participating in the election process. It was further pleaded that Respondent No.5 is not connected with the university or any college, therefore, he is competent to be a Member of Committee for appointment of Kulpati. Hence, he is elected in consonance with the provisions as contemplated in Section 13 (2) of the Adhiniyam. Respondent No.5 was elected with majority of votes as he secured 6 votes out of 10 votes and the victory margin of votes in favour of respondent No.5 was more than 2, hence, the question of participation of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 does not, in any way affects the result. It is also stated that the petitioner's name was proposed by one of the member of the Executive Council and during the election process that member has not raised any objection in regard to participation of Respondent No.3 & 4. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot raise such an objection regarding eligibility of casting of votes by Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, there is no merit in the petition.