MAHESH CHANDRA TAK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition is yet another case seeking to bring to the fore serious administrative & financial irregularities against the present administrative set up of the J.N.V. University, Jodhpur. Petitioner seeks direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to seize the entire papers, accounts & material relating to the Rajasthan Pre- Engineering Test 2003, hereinafter referred to as "RPET-2003", conducted by the respondent No.3 Dr. Naseem Bhatia Vice Chancellor JNV University Jodhpur, Professor Rajesh Mathur and Shri Ravi Saxena, both members of the Faculty of Engineering, JNV University, Jodhpur and to investigate the entire matter and submit its detailed report in a time-bound programme.

(2.) IT is averred that admissions to the First Year of BE/BTEXT/BR Degree Courses for the Sessions 2003-04 in various Engineering Colleges of the State of Rajasthan, were to be made on the basis of Pre-Engineering Test and so the State government authorized the respondent No.2 i.e. J.N.V. University Jodhpur to conduct the RPET-2003. The Test was organized by the Centralized Admission Co-ordination Committee (in short "CACC") under the chairmanship of fourth respondent Dr. Naseem Bhatia Vice Chancellor of the UNV University, respondent No.5 Professor Rajesh Mathur Co-ordinator and Ravi Saxena, a Member of the RPET 2003 Cell. The test was conducted at various places in the State of Rajasthan. A sum of Rs.18.50 crores was collected from the students, who appeared at the test. for keeping the fund, separate new Bank Accounts were opened in different Banks in the name of Co-ordinator RPET-2003. Ordinarily, the amount ought to have been deposited in the University Account in the University Bank, but respondent No.5 with the approval of respondent No.4, for ulterior purpose, opened the account in separate Bank. The handful staff was engaged for discharging the functions of the RPET-2003 without fixing the norms and thereby, the honorarium was paid to them at an exorbitant rate. The respondents No.4 & 5 were responsible to submit a true and correct account to the University as well as to the State Government but the same was not done almost for a period of one year. Thus, the matter was agitated in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 21.9.2004. The Syndicate was required to consider the saving of the RPET-2003 to be transferred in the Pension Fund. The Vice-Chancellor assured the Syndicate members that the account shall be placed before the Syndicate at the earlier but when the words were not kept, the members in subsequent meetings continued to agitate the issue and also made demand for disciplinary action against the Coordinator of the RPET-2003. In the meeting of the Syndicate held on 1.10.2004, the Vice-Chancellor made a statement that the account has been received but she was not in position to give full details of the account. Neither the account was placed before the Syndicate nor disciplinary action was initiated against the Coordinator and the Vice-Chancellor continued to defend fifth & sixth respondents. IT was specifically agitated that the University had received about 18.50 crores from the RPET-2003 out of which Rs.14,80,00,000/- have been paid to the private Engineering Colleges but there was no account of the difference of the amount. IT was apprehended that a huge amount has been misappropriated. IT was also pointed out that the amount was being lavishly spent for renovation of the office of the vice Chancellor and other officials concerning RPET-2003. The costly vehicles were purchased. the huge amount was misappropriated against the expenditure on Tent. The saving of Rs.88,54,000/- was shown but no details of he same were given. The proceedings of the Syndicate appeared in the newspaper viz., Rajasthan Patrika dated 19th Dec. 2004, wherein details of misuse of funds have been reported in detail. A copy of the Newspaper cutting has been placed on record as Ex.6. The petitioner having failed before the authorities, has approached to this Court by way of instant petition.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General made another application for delivery of the original record to the State Government required for initiating the enquiry. This Court by order dated 1.9.2005 directed to give a photo copy of the record to the State Government.