Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner Amrit Prasad, by way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of quo warranto against the respondent No. 6, who happens to be the Vice-Chancellor of Buldelkhand University, Jhansi on the premises that he is not eligible for being selected or appointed in view of the lack of eligibility as per the minimum requirement of experience for the post of Vice-Chancellor, working as a professor in University for minimum ten years.

2. Petitioner submits that he is resident of village Syota Syoudha, Tehsil-Naraini, District Banda and is also the central treasurer of Budelkhand Mukti Morcha which is an organization involved in protest for last many decades for carving out a separate state out of Uttar Pradesh consisting numbers of districts from the Bundelkhand Region. Petitioner has submitted that he has only concern for the purity of the education system as such has got locus to prefer the present writ petition in its form. It is further submitted that the action of the petitioner is bona fide and the petitioner’s approach to the Hon’ble Court is further with clean hands, clean mind and with clean objective as such this Hon’ble Court may please look into the procedure adopted by the State Government and the Selection Committee (Search Committee) in appointing the respondent No. 6 as Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University within the ambit and scope of quo warranto.

3. The factual situation that is so emerging is that respondent No. 6-Prof. (Dr.) Avinash Chandra Pandey has been recommended to function as the Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and pursuant to the said recommendation, he has joined as Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi on 24th December, 2012. Petitioner before this Court is submitting that the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the present petition, does not possess the requisite qualifications provided for in 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 which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It has been stated that though clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations which deals with Vice-Chancellor provides that the Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization but respondent No. 6 does not possess this essential qualification and, therefore, is holding the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University without any authority, whereas 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 has been adopted by the State Government and thus there is no escape route for the respondent No. 6 to continue to function as Vice-Chancellor without having minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in the University.

4. On such a plea being raised from the side of the petitioner through his counsel Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate appearing alongwith Shri Rajkaran Tripathi, Advocate, resistance has been made by learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 1, Shri Neeraj Tripathi, Advocate appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 4, Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate representing respondent No. 3 and Shri Ritvik Upadhyay, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5 by submitting that in the matter of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor, UGC Regulations have not at all been adhered to by the State of U.P. and as such, once the Vice-Chancellor f