Harsha Devani, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks the following substantive relief’s:

9. Therefore petitioner prays as under:-

(a) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of quo warranto and/or appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of quo warranto and further be pleased to hold that appointment of sixth respondent is of ineligible/disqualified candidate contrary to statutory provisions of S.P. University Act, 1955 and norms and regulations of UGC and hence bad in law and therefore requires to be quashed and set aside and further to be pleased to quash and set aside the appointment of sixth respondent as V.C. of respondent university.

(c) That this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of prohibition and/or appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition restraining sixth respondent permanently to function as V.C. of respondent university.

2. The facts as averred in the petition are that the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the third respondent Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as the respondent university) is to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as SPU Act). Accordingly, a three-member committee is required to be appointed by the Chancellor for the purpose of recommending the names of three persons. Accordingly, the following three persons came to be appointed as the members of the committee:

(i) Prof. Yogesh Singh,

(ii) Dr. Mukul I. Shah, and

(iii) Dr. Sanjay Bhayani.

3. A meeting of the committee appointed under section 10(2)(a) of the SPU Act was held on 29th July 2016, wherein it was decided to invite curriculum vitae (C.V.) and the eligibility criteria for the candidates was prescribed. According to the petitioner, such eligibility criteria was prescribed in tune with the criteria prescribed under regulation 7.3.0 of 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, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations). Thereafter, the respondent university published an advertisement dated 1.8.2016 inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor of the said university. Thereafter, the committee recommended the names of three candidates to the State Government along with which particulars given in the Statute 101(6) were also submitted. After considering the recommendations of the committee, the State Government issued a notification dated 31.8.2016 bearing No.GH/SH/46/SPY/122010/2626/KH, appointing the sixth respondent Professor Dr. Shirish R. Kulkarni as Vice Chancellor of the respondent university.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of time he came to know that the sixth respondent though appointed as Vice Chancellor of the respondent university, did not possess the requisite experience of ten years as a professor for the purpose of being considered for appointment as Vice Chancellor. It appears that as the petitioner thereafter made several applications under the Right To Information Act, 2005 and came to know that the sixth respondent was promoted as Professor (C.A.S.) by an office order dated 1.12.2010, with effect from 8.3.2008 and therefore, the date on which he was considered and appointed as Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University, he did not possess experience of ten years as professor and was, therefore, not eligible to be considered and appointed as Vice Chancellor.

5. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the sixth respondent as Vice Chancellor, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the sixth respondent has no authority in law to occupy the post of Vice Chancellor.