SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Gau) 790

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Asok Potsangbam,T.Vaiphei, JJ.
K.D.Ramsiej and Anr. -Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. -Resopndent
Pill No. 3(SH) of 2007
Decided On : 06-12-2007

Advocates Appeared:
S.C.Shyam, K.Paul, S.Sen

PILs in service matters are not maintainable, and compliance with court rules is essential for the admissibility of a PIL.

Headnote:

PIL - Appointment of Professors - Gauhati High Court Rules - [Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, Appendix-28 of the Gauhati High Court Rules] - The court dismissed the PIL seeking to restrain the University from appointing professors, citing the maintainability of PIL in service matters and the violation of Gauhati High Court Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a PIL seeking to restrain the University from appointing professors, alleging irregularities in the selection process and qualifications of the appointed professors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the PIL not maintainable due to the nature of the case being a service matter and the violation of Gauhati High Court Rules.

Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the PIL in a service matter and the compliance with Gauhati High Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that PILs in service matters are not maintainable and dismissed the PIL due to the violation of Gauhati High Court Rules.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the PIL as not maintainable.

Asok Potsangbam, J

1. This petition is filed by the two petitioners in the form of a public interest litigation seeking for a Writ of Mandamus restraining the University Respondent from giving effect to the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Professor and Reader in the Department of Philosophy and also for issuing a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Professor and Reader in the Department of Philosophy, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, for short "NEHU". The prayer made in the petition is extracted below: -

"In the premises aforesaid it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, Issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus not issue directing the respondents to withdraw, recall and otherwise forbear from giving effect to the impugned appointments of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Professor and Reader in the Department of Philosophy respectively and further as to why a Writ of Certiorari not issue quashing and setting aside the appointment of the respondent No. 7 (Dr. Vanlalnghak) as Professor of Philosophy of Culture in the Department of Philosophy, North Eastern Hills University, Shillong and the appointment of respondent No. 8 (Dr. Prasanjit Biswas) as Reader in the Department of Philosophy and on cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. AND During pendency of the rule be further pleased to stay the appointment of the respondent No. 7 Dr. Vanlalnghak's as Professor in the Department of Philosophy and that of the respondent No. 8 Reader in the Department of Philosophy."

2. The petitioner No. 1 who is a Research Scholar in Philosophy was a candidate for selection to the post of Reader in Philosophy and petitioner No. 2 is a Professor in the Centre for Science Education in the North Eastern Hill University, Shillong and he was not a candidate against any of the two posts against which respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have been appointed. Infact, two years after the appointment of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as Professor and Reader in the Department of Philosophy, NEHU, their appointments came to be challenged in this petition on various grounds, inter alia, notification of vacancies was published only in three national dailies instead of four, the respondent No. 7 did not have the requisite qualification for being eligible for appointment to the post of Professor, Respondent No. 8 did not have consistently good academic record, improper selection and nomination of experts in the Selection Committee, failure to call Dr. S. Behera from Sambalpur (Orissa) and Dr. K.P. Mohat from St. Anthony's College, Shillong for interview, etc.

3. Substantially and essentially, the challenge in this writ petition is to the advertisement, selection process and qualification of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, qualification of experts, recommendations made by the Selection Committee and appointment of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 and, as such, the instant PIL is a case relating to service matter.

4. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Registrar of NEHU also filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, disputing and controverting the allegation/contention made in the PIL. The affidavit of the Registrar discloses that the selection process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.3.2005 was challenged by one Shri Xavier P. Mao in W.P.(C) No. 103(SH) of 2005 and the same person filed W.P.(C) No. 118(SH) of 2005 and W.P.(C) No. 5 (SH)/2006 challenging the appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 respectively and W.P.(C) No. 118(SH) of 2005 was already dismissed by this Court on 17.10.2006 for want of locus standi and W.P.(C) No. 5 (SHV2006 is pending. Further, the Registrar of the University has




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top