ORDER :

1. These two petitions invoke the PIL jurisdiction of this Court essentially for a writ of quo warranto for the removal of 3rd respondent from the office of Vice Chancellor of the 5 th respondent –University.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the subject appointment is liable to be voided for the following reasons:

(i) The Search Committee was wrongly constituted inasmuch as two of its members were associated with the affairs of the respondent–University and there was no UGC nominee in the said Committee.

(ii) The 3rd respondent appointee lacked requisite qualification both in terms of Section 13 of the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 and the ‘UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018’. His academic performance was very bad.

(iii) The 3rd respondent does not have good credentials as are required for the high office of the Vice Chancellor of a University and that he has some criminal antecedents too.

In support of his submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court