DR. SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 4 Dr. Yashwant Singh Harta, Assistant Professor, Department of Life Long Learning as Field Officer and Director of Cost of Cultivation Scheme, in place of the petitioner, who is working as Associate Professor in the Department of Economics. The said appointment, on 26/8/2023,(Annexure P-5) was in addition to the duties being performed by respondent No. 4 and had led to a service dispute as such. Initially, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.7633 of 2023, titled Dr. Sanjeev Kumar vs. Union of India and others, which was eventually withdrawn before the learned Single Judge on 23/7/2024 (Annexure P-6) with liberty to file the present Public Interest Litigation.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the appointment was in violation of the provisions contained in Clause (xxix) of the Memorandum of Understanding as only the Assistant/Associate Professor or equivalent officer in the Department of Agricultural Economics in the University will be deputed as Field Officer as such and therefore, since the private respondent was Assistant Processor in the Department of Life Long Learning and did not have any connection with the department of Cost of Cultivation Scheme, a writ of quo warranto as such has been prayed for by way of petition which has been filed as Public Interest Litigation. The necessary averments have been duly made that there is no personal interest of the petitioner and the petitioner is not guided by self gain and there is no oblique motive and respondent No. 4 is a usurper of the post. The petitioner has been candid enough to mention the fact that he had laid challenge to the action of the respondents in the earlier round of litigation filed by him.

(3.) Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 has raised serious objection as such to the maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation on the ground that it is a settled principle of law that in service law litigation, the petitioner cannot file petition by way of Public Interest Litigation as the purpose of the Public Interest Litigation is different and meant for down trodden persons.