1. The Chancellor of the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya (for short, 'the University') in exercise of power conferred under Section 9(1) of the Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2011 (for short, 'the Act of 2011') constituted a Search Committee consisting of three members namely (1) Mr. Sarjaius Minj, Chairman of the Committee being the nominee of Chancellor; (2) Dr. A.K. Mishra – respondent No.6 herein, Member as a nominee of the State Government; and (3) Dr. P.D. Juyal – respondent No.5 herein, Member as a nominee of the Executive Council of the University, by order dated 12-4-2017 and it was amended on 17-4- 2017. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 apart from other candidates made their candidature for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Formal advertisement was also issued for the post of Vice- Chancellor. Thereafter, on 14-6-2017, the petitioner herein filed this writ petition alleging that respondent No.5 is disqualified to act as a member of the Search Committee constituted under Section 9(1) of the Act of 2011 on the ground that he has been appointed as a nominee of the Executive Council of the University in a meeting of the Executive Council chaired by respondent No.4 herein. On 16-6-2017, the writ petition was entertained and interim order restraining further proceeding on the post of Vice-Chancellor was passed by this Court. Thereafter, parties have filed their counter-affidavits. Meanwhile, on 22-5-2017, respondent No.6 was appointed as Member of the Executive Council of the respondent University by the Chancellor of the University which was notified by the University on 7-6-2017 and thereafter, application for amendment was filed on 18-8-2017 challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as Member of the Search Committee as well as seeking declaration that the selection and recommendation made by the Search Committee comprising of respondents No.5 and 6 to be void and illegal on the ground that the appointment of respondent No.6 as a Member of the Search Committee is in teeth of the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act of 2011, as the Search Committee constituted is not competent to make legal recommendation on account of disqualification suffered by one of its members i.e. respondent No.6 herein. A prayer has also been sought to declare the appointment as illegal and to set aside the entire selection process and the recommendation made by the said Search Committee consisting of respondents No.5 and 6.

2. Respondent No.1 University has filed its return stating inter alia that the writ petition as framed and filed is premature, only recommendations have been made and the petitioner is at liberty to make objections to the recommendations so made to the Chancellor and the constitution of Search Committee has not been questioned. The petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition, he has also participated in the selection process and respondent No.6 has been appointed as Member of the Executive Council much after his nomination in the Search Committee constituted under Section 9(1) of the Act of 2011 and, therefore, the writ petition as framed and filed deserves to be dismissed.

3. Return has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 stating inter alia that a three-member Search Committee has been constituted by order dated 12-4-2017 in accordance with Section 9(1) of the Act of 2011 and the Committee has thereafter, sent a panel of three names in accordance with Section 9(1) of the said Act for consideration of the Chancellor in a sealed envelope and in the additional affidavit filed on 25-10-2017, it has been stated that the Committee has submitted a panel of three names on 15-6-2017 and the Chancellor has made nomination of members of the Executive Council vide notification dated 22-5-2017 wherein three members namely, Dr. V.K. Taneja, Dr. A.K. Gahlot and Dr. A.K. Mishra – respondent No.6 herein, have been appointed as Members of the Executive Council of respo