The court affirmed that the Principal's qualifications met regulatory standards, dismissing claims of ineligibility and highlighting the importance of discouraging frivolous litigation.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1, learned counsel appearing for R2, learned standing counsel for R3 and R4 and the learned counsel for R5 and R6 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the 5^th respondent in appointing the 6^th respondent as Principal of the 5^th respondent college and seeks for issuance of writ of quo-warranto directing the 6^th respondent to show cause as to under what authority he is holding the post of Principal of the 5^th respondent college, with a consequential direction to remove him from the post of Principal of the 5^th respondent college.

3. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he had worked as Campus Supervisor of the 5^th respondent college for 9 years and opted for voluntary retirement on 01.11.2000; and having worked in the said college for long years and having rich experience in working other college he has concern for engineering education and welfare of teaching and other faculties of the 5^th respondent college.

4. The petitioner further contended that the 5^th respondent appointed the 6^th respondent as its Principal in the year 2014; that during inspection caused by the 2^nd respondent in the year 2017, it was found that the 6^th respondent was ineligible to hold the post of Principal and accordingly the 2^nd respondent had issued deficiency report / show cause notice to the 5^th respondent in letter dated 21.04.2017; and that thereafter the 6^th respondent was expelled from the post of Principal of the 5^th respondent college.

5. The petitioner further contended that the 5^th respondent having expelled the 6^th respondent from the post of principal, had once again appointed him as its Principal in the year 2019, despite of the 6^th respondent not possessing the requisite qualification as per All India Council for Technical Education (herein after referred to as “AICTE”) guidelines; that the 6^th respondent is only a graduate and Post Graduate in Science and claims to have obtained M.Tech degree without completing the Under Graduate degree in Engineering; and that the doctoral decree is also in Chemistry and not in any Engineering stream for him to claim as eligible to hold the post of Principal.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that as per AICTE regulations, in order to be a Principal of an Engineering college, one should possess qualification of Under Graduate, Post Graduate and Ph.D in Engineering stream and in as much as the 6^th respondent does not possess the said qualification, the 5^th respondent could not have appointed him as its Principal having removed it from the said post after the 2^nd respondent raising a deficiency report / show cause notice during April 2017.

7. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 6^th respondent not only lacks the requisite educational qualification to hold the post of Principal, but also lacks experience; that in his employment, he has worked only as Assistant Professor and not as Professor, that to in basic science department and not in any Engineering branch of studies; that on account of lack of educational qualification, the 6^th respondent could not conduct faculty meeting effectively as he did not possess sufficient knowledge in Engineering to interact with other faculty members; that with insufficient knowledge he interacts with other faculty in teaching methods causing frustration among the teaching staff; that he and others have brought the afor