HARI SHANKER GOYAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by Shri Hari Shanker Goyal, an advocate practising in this court, and a registered graduate of the Rajasthan University, seeks the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against the respondent No. 2, Shri Ziauddin khan, Professor and Head of the Department of Public Administration, rajasthan University and against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, sarvashri Girdhar Behari Sharma and Hosiar Singh, Lecturers, Department of public Administration, Rajasthan University, from usurping the offices of professor of Public Administration and Lecturers, Department of Public administration, Rajasthan University, respectively.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No. 2, Shri Ziauddin khan, retired as Professor and Head of the Department of Public Administration, rajasthan University, in the year 1974. That being so, the relief claimed against him in the petition has become infructuous.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, challenged the validity of the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Sarvasihri Girdhar behari Sharma and Hosiar Singh, as Lecturers, Department of Public administration, Rajasthan University, and has advanced a submission threefold. Firstly, the contention is that the constitution of the Selection Committee under Section 20 of the Statutes of the University was invalid inasmuch as Shri ziauddin Khan could not be appointed as Professor of Public Administration as he did not have the requisite qualification. Secondly, the contention is that Shri d. C. Swami, who was a nominee of the Syndicate in the Selection Committee, not having attended the meeting of the Selection Committee held on August 4, 1972, the Selection Committee was not validly constituted. And thirdly, the contention is that Shri Rama Reddi, Professor and Head of the Department of political Science, Usmania University and Professor S. M. Hasan, Professor and head of the Department of Law in the Aligarh University, were not experts within the meaning of Statute 20 (2) (b) (v) for the reason that they were not the persons possessing special knowledge of the subject concerned, i. e. , Public administration. There is, in my opinion, no substance in any of the contentions.