JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

In the nature of the orders to be passed in the above writ petition, we need to briefly refer to what transpired on the last date. On 25.08.2023, when the matter was called Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent specifically pointed out that the Chancellor of the University had conducted an enquiry into the specific allegations raised herein, against the 7th respondent and found his appointment and continuance to be proper. A copy of the communication issued from the office of the Chancellor specifically recording the satisfaction of the Chancellor, based on the report of enquiry, was also produced in the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the 7th respondent has been constantly harassed by one complaint or the other and the present writ petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation is another attempt at witch-hunting. Earlier, based on a complaint filed by a person, who had also approached this Court with similar contentions, but later sought for withdrawal of the writ petition to agitate his cause before the Chancellor, an enquiry was conducted; which culminated in the satisfaction of the Chancellor about the credentials of the 7th respondent to continue in the post of Controller of Examinations. Learned Senior Counsel also prayed for exemplary costs, in which circumstances we directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to seek instructions from his client as to whether he would want to pursue the matter, especially since the writ petition seeks a writ of quo warranto against the continuance of the 7th respondent in the post of Controller of Examinations with the respondent University; which was found to be proper by the Chancellor himself. Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time to seek instructions from the petitioner as to whether he would like to pursue the matter.

2. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, Sri S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the petitioner. We specifically queried him as to whether he was aware of what transpired on the last occasion and the demand for exemplary costs made by the 7th respondent. Learned Senior Counsel not only wanted to pursue the matter but also raised a preliminary objection regarding the appearance of Sri P.K. Shahi for the private respondent, who is also the Advocate General of the State. On such preliminary objection raised, we queried Sri S.D. Sanjay as to whether he wants to press the issue, especially when there is no conflict with the interest of the State and it involves the right of a litigant to have a lawyer of his choice to defend him in a Court of law. Wiser counsel prevailed and Sri S.D. Sanjay withdrew the preliminary objection raised, but still insisted on arguing the matter.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there are two specific issues raised to challenge the appointment and continuance of the 7th respondent, as the Controller of Examinations. Learned Senior Counsel specifically took us to Section 8(b) of Chapter I of the Statutes of Aryabhatta Knowledge University, which according to him, mandates that the appointment of Controller of Examination should be for a tenure of three years. When we pointed out that the specific provision speaks of an appointment for a term of three years or as decided by the Executive Council, the learned Senior Counsel urged that there is neither a decision taken by the Executive Council to appoint the person for a period exceeding three years nor is the 7th respondent reappointed, after the initial term of three years.

4. The next ground taken by the petitioner is insofar as the educational qualification required for the post, as advertised being different from that prescribed by the University Grants Commission (for brevity ‘U.G.C.’). It was the specific contention that the es