Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania, JJ.
Neetu Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 24229 of 2019
Decided On : 05-09-2019
For the Appellant : Shailendra Misra
For the Respondents: C.S.C. and Abhinav N. Trivedi
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Appointment – Eligibility – Petition filed on the ground that the Respondent No. 4 lacks the educational qualification as required by an incumbent for being appointed as Professor in Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab and therefore, was in-eligible – Challenged – Appeal – Held, post of Professor of KGMU cannot be held to be a 'Public Office' merely because the University is imparting education and is a Statutory Body enacted under the Act of 2002 – Office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government either Executive or Legislative or Judicial for public benefit – It cannot be said that Public in general is interested and non observance of the obligations of his employment as a Professor, in any event, shall effect the interest of public at large; and even if it would affect, the same shall be too remote so as to make the Office of the Professor a 'Public Office' – Teaching staff/faculty (Professor in the instant case) of King George's Medical University are not the holder of Public Office – Writ Petition is dismissed. [Paras 17, 21 and 22]
Facts of the case:
The Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the Respondent No. 4 lacks the educational qualification as required by an incumbent for being appointed as Professor in Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab and therefore, was in-eligible. In support of the aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner has contended that the Respondent No. 4 does not possess qualifications as prescribed in the Advertisement against the post of Professor in Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab.
Findings of the case:
post of Professor of KGMU cannot be held to be a 'Public Office' merely because the University is imparting education and is a Statutory Body enacted under the Act of 2002 – Office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government either Executive or Legislative or Judicial for public benefit – It cannot be said that Public in general is interested and non observance of the obligations of his employment as a Professor, in any event, shall effect the interest of public at large; and even if it would affect, the same shall be too remote so as to make the Office of the Professor a 'Public Office' – Teaching staff/faculty (Professor in the instant case) of King George's Medical University are not the holder of Public Office.
Result: Writ Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard Sri Shailendra Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned C.S.C. for the opposite party No. 1 and Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.
By means of the instant Writ Petition the Petitioner who is working as Professor in the Department of Centre for Advanced Research (Molecular Biology) of King George's Medical University (hereinafter referred to as 'KGMU') has sought a Writ of Quo-warranto against Respondent No. 4 Dr. Shailendra Saxena working as Professor in the Department of Centre for Advanced Research (Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab) requiring him to show-cause as to under which Authority of Law he is holding the post of Professor.
In the present writ petition, following main relief has been sought:
"(i) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Quo warranto requiring the opposite parties to show that by which authority opposite party No. 4 is holding the post of Professor Centre for Advance Research (Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab) K.G.M.U., Lucknow."
2. The Writ Petition has been filed on the ground that the Respondent No. 4 lacks the educational qualification as required by an incumbent for being appointed as Professor in Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab and therefore, was in-eligible. In support of the aforesaid allegations, the Petitioner has contended that the Respondent No. 4 does not possess qualifications as prescribed in the Advertisement against the post of Professor in Stem Cell/Cell Culture Lab.
3. Learned counsel representing the K.G.M.U., Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, raised A Preliminary objection raised with regard to maintainability of the instant Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Co-Warranto on the ground that the post of 'Professor' in KGMU is not a 'Public Office'.
In support of preliminary objection, Sri Trivedi counsel for the K.G.M.U., placed reliance on the provision of Uttar Pradesh King George's Medical University Act, 2002 (in short "Act of 2002") and First Statute, 2011 (in short "Statute of 2011"). The reliance has also been placed on various authorities/judgments including the judgment of this Court dated 16.8.2019 passed in the Writ Petition No. 19119 (SS) of 2019 [Kundan Singh v. State of U.P.].
4. It is submitted by Sri Trivedi that the High Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction, in the matter of Quo-warranto, is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuing a Writ of Quo-warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Writ of Quo-warranto is a limited one. A Writ of Quo-warranto can only be issued when three conditions are satisfied i.e. (1) the appointment is contrary to the Statutory Rules; (2) the holder of the post is a Usurper; and (3) the post in question is a 'Public Office'.
5. Sri Trivedi further submitted that the law is well-settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in the matter of Quo-warranto is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a Writ of Quo-warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a Writ of Quo-warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when it is established that the incumbent is an alleged Usurper of a 'Public Office' and the appointment is contrary to the Statutory Rules.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that K.G.M.U. is a Statutory Body constituted under the special Act and being so as well as in view of functions which K.G.M.U. is discharging i.e. providing medical education and treatment to the public at large, it, can safely be said that K.G.M.U. is discharging sovereign function and post of the Professor is "Public Office "Thus writ petition for the relief sought is liable to be entertained, being maintainable and be decided on merits.
6. Before dealing with case on merits on the basis of the factual matrix and dealing with the exposition of facts, as illustrated in the Writ Petition, it would be expedient to adjudicate the iss
