Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Sandeep Kulshresetha v. Manoj Pratap Singh Yadav & Others
Writ Appeals No. 1598 of 2019 and 1994 of 2019 (Gwalior): against the order dated 27.8.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 4308/2016; Decided on 20.11.2023
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- scope of power -- challenge to appointment -- jurisdiction to issue writ of quo warranto is limited -- writ of quo warranto will lie only when appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions -- normally, whether student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications and/or experience or not, should better be left to educational institutions -- particularly so when supported by Expert Committee -- unless Court is satisfied that incumbent was not eligible at all as per statutory provisions for being appointed or elected to public office or that he/she incurred disqualification to continue in said office, which satisfaction should be founded on indisputable facts, High Court ought not to entertain prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto -- writ of quo warranto should be refused when it is outcome of malice or ill will -- petition praying for writ of quo warranto being in nature of public interest litigation, not maintainable at instance of person who is not unbiased -- the forum cannot be chosen to settle personal scores. AIR 1965 SC 491, (2018) 6 SCC 162, (2013) 1 SCC 501, (2006) 11 SCC 731, (1979) 2 SCC 339, (2007) 5 SCC 519 and (2009) 11 SCC 726 followed. (2003) 4 SCC 712, 2001 SCC Online Guj. 76, (2002) 6 SCC 269 and (1993) 4 SCC 119 referred to. [Para 8
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of certiorari -- scope of power -- challenge to appointment -- certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at instance of aggrieved person who is qualified for post and is candidate for post. [Para 8
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- challenge to appointment -- malice or ill will of petitioner -- writ petitioner ousted employee of IITTM -- habitual in making complaint against appellant Professor, besides uploading obnoxious material against IITTM on Facebook -- not a candidate to post in question -- writ appeals allowed. [Para 8
(4) Words and Phrases -- “experience” -- practical knowledge and skills gained through doing job or engaging in various activities over time -- reckoning of experience can be based on combination of factors including nature of work done, skills acquired, duration of involvement and endorsement or validation by recognized entity within given industry or profession -- ultimately it is mix of technical know-how and acknowledgment by relevant bodies within field. [Para 9
(5) Words and Phrases -- “qualification” -- refers to former credentials, degrees, certifications or achievements acquired through education or training that demonstrates person's abilities in particular field. [Para 9
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- challenge to appointment -- post of professor -- experience in post graduate teaching -- experience of teaching as Reader claimed by candidate in certain courses -- AICTE treating these courses as post graduate courses -- entry-level qualification bachelor's degree -- writ petitioner brought nothing on record to suggest that entry-level qualification was 10th or 12th and not graduation -- these courses treated by expert body, viz., Selection Committee, Board of Governors and appointing authority as post graduate teaching -- Single Judge not right in substituting his opinion over that of expert body in this behalf, that too while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under quo warranto. [Para 9
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- challenge to appointment -- post of professor -- 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching required -- appellant candidate has more than 11 years' PG experience (though not entirely in tourism) -- requirement in advertisement of 10 years and in recruitment rules of 8 years -- statutory rules assume precedence over advertisement in event of variation between two -- advertisement did not require PG teaching experience in tourism -- observation that advertisement was for post of Professor (Tourism) therefore requirement of 10 years' post graduate teaching experience has to be read as 10 years' post graduate teaching experience in tourism, based on self-perceived notion and in excess of requirement under advertisement and recruitment rules -- while exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226, Court not expected to add or subtract contents to facilitate/enforce its own perspective, particularly while reading terms of advertisement or rules having legal sanction -- finding with regard to non-eligibility of appellant for appointment to post of Professor (Tourism) cannot be sustained, being in excess of jurisdiction. (2018)3 SCC 55 followed. 1988 (Supp.) SCC 127 referred to. [Paras 10 & 13
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- scope of power -- challenge to appointment -- omnibus directions of exceptional nature given to CBI to investigate offences -- said directions by writ Court exercising quo warranto jurisdiction explicitly far in excess of constitutional jurisdiction. [Para 14
(9) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ of quo warranto -- scope of power -- challenge to appointment -- direction to refund difference of salary -- is in ignorance of and contrary to dictum of apex Court that there cannot be any direction for recovery of sum even while issuing writ of quo warranto. (2014) 1 SCC 161 referred to. [Para 14
(10) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of power -- extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction is neither unbridled nor uncanalised -- it is subject to self-imposed limitations -- Constitutional Courts expected to exercise such jurisdiction with care, caution and circumspection ensuring that judicial discipline is not sacrificed in any manner whatsoever -- scope and dimension of each of five writs well delineated meticulously and vividly in catena of decisions -- writ of quo warranto being of technical nature cannot be expanded to cover anything under sky, much less for reducing writ Court to Court of investigation with unwarranted manifold directions to authorities forcing investigation without contextual facts having relevance to exercise of quo warranto jurisdiction. [Para 15
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV tkjh djus dh vf/kdkfjrk lhfer gS & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV rc gh gksxh tc fu;qfä dkuwuh mica/kksa ds çfrdwy gks & lkekU;r% fo|kFkhZ vH;FkhZ ds ikl vko';d vgZrk,¡ vkSj@vFkok vuqHko gS ;k ugha- ;g 'kSf{kd laLFkkuksa ij NksM+k tkuk pkfg, & rc fo'ks"kr% tc og fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk lefFkZr gks & tc rd U;k;ky; dk lek/kku ugha gksrk fd dkuwuh mica/kksa ds vuqlkj in/kkjh yksd in ij fu;qä ;k fuokZfpr fd, tkus ds fy, ik= Fkk gh ugha vFkok ;g fd mlus mä in ij cus jgus dh fujgZrk mixr dj yh- tks lekèkku fufoZokfnr rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gksuk pkfg,- mPp U;k;ky; dks vfèkdkji`PNk fjV tkjh djus dh çkFkZuk xzg.k ugha djuk pkfg, & og fo}s"k ;k oSeuL; dk ifj.kke gks rks vf/kdkji`PNk fjV ls bUdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV dh çkFkZuk dh ;kfpdk yksd fgr eqdnes dh ç—fr dh gksus ds dkj.k] ,sls O;fä ds dgus ij pyus ;ksX; ugha tks fu"i{k ugha & O;fäxr çfr'kks/k ds fy, U;k;ky; ugha pquk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 491- ¼2018½ 6 ,l lh lh 162] ¼2013½1 ,l lh lh 501] ¼2006½11 ,l lh lh 731] ¼1979½ 2 ,l lh lh 339] ¼2007½ 5 ,l lh lh 519 rFkk ¼2009½ 11 ,l lh lh 726 vuqlfjrA mPp U;k;ky; ¼2003½ 4 ,l lh lh 712] 2001 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu xqt- 76] ¼2002½ 6 ,l lh lh 269 rFkk ¼1993½4 ,l lh lh 119 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & mRçs"k.k fjV & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & mRçs"k.k vf/kdkfjrk ,sls O;fFkr O;fä ds dgus ij gh ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS tks in ds fy, vgZ gS rFkk in dk vH;FkhZ gSA ¼iSjk 8½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & ;kph dk fo}s"k ;k oSeuL; & fjV ;kph vkbvkbVhVh,e dk cfg"—r deZpkjh & Qslcqd ij vkbvkbVhVh,e ds fo:) vkifÙktud lkexzh viyksM ds vfrfjä] vihykFkhZ vkpk;Z ds fo:) f'kdk;r djus dk vH;Lr & ç'uxr in dk vH;FkhZ ugha & fjV vihysa eatwjA ¼iSjk 8½
¼4½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & ÞvuqHkoß & dk;Z djds ;k le; ds lkFk fofHkUu xfrfof/k;ksa esa fyIr gksdj vftZr O;kogkfjd Kku vkSj dkS'ky & vuqHko dk vkdyu vusd dkjdksa ds feJ.k ij vk/kkfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS ftuesa fd, x, dk;Z dh ç—fr] vftZr dkS'ky] lgHkkfxrk dh vof/k rFkk fdlh m|ksx ;k o`fÙk esa ekU;rkçkIr bdkbZ }kjk vuqeksnu ;k fof/kekU;dj.k lfEefyr gSa & varr% ;g rduhdh O;ogkj-Kku vkSj ml {ks= ds lqlaxr fudk;ksa }kjk ekU;rk dk feJ.k gSA ¼iSjk 9½
¼5½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & ÞvgZrkß & iwoZorhZ çR;;i=] mikf/k;k¡] çek.ki= vFkok f'k{kk ;k çf'k{k.k ds ek/;e ls vftZr og miyfC/k;‚a fufnZ"V ftuls fdlh fof'kf"V {ks= esa O;fä dh çfrHkk çnf'kZr gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 9½
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & vkpk;Z dk in & LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k dk vuqHko & vH;FkhZ }kjk mikpk;Z ds :i esa dfri; ikB;Øeksa esa f'k{k.k ds vuqHko dk nkok & ,vkblhVhbZ }kjk bu ikB~;Øeksa dks LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ekuk tkrk gS & ços'k-Lrj vgZrk Lukrd dh mikf/k & fjV ;kph }kjk ;g crkus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha yk;k x;k fd ços'k&Lrj dh vgZrk 10oha ;k 12oha Fkh] Lukrd ugha & bu ikB~;Øeksa dks fo'ks"kK fudk; vFkkZr~ p;u lfefr] 'kkld eaMy rFkk fu;qfä çkf/kdkjh }kjk LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k ekuk x;k & ,dy U;k;k/kh'k }kjk bl laca/k esa fo'ks"kK fudk; dh jk; dks viuh jk; ls çfrLFkkfir djuk lgh ugha] og Hkh vf/kdkji`PNk ds v/khu vlkèkkj.k vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä djrs le;A ¼iSjk 9½
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & vkpk;Z dk in & LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k esa 10 o"kZ dk vuqHko visf{kr & vihykFkhZ vH;FkhZ dks 11 o"kZ ls vf/kd dk LukrdksÙkj vuqHko ¼;|fi og iw.kZr% i;ZVu esa ugha½ & foKkiu esa 10 o"kZ dh vis{kk rFkk HkrhZ fu;eksa esa 8 o"kZ dh & dkuwuh fu;eksa vkSj foKkiu esa QdZ gksus dh n'kk esa dkuwuh fu;eksa dks ojh;rk çkIr gksrh gS & foKkiu esa i;ZVu esa LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k vuqHko visf{kr ugha & ;g leqfä fd foKkiu vkpk;Z ¼i;ZVu½ ds in ds fy, Fkk blfy, 10 o"kZ ds LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k vuqHko dh vis{kk dks i;ZVu esa 10 o"kZ dk LukrdksÙkj f'k{k.k vuqHko i<+k tkuk gksxk] Lo;a }kjk vuqekfur /kkj.kk ij vk/kkfjr rFkk foKkiu vkSj HkrhZ fu;eksa dh vis{kk ls vf/kd & vuq- 226 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä djrs le;] vius –f"Vdks.k dks lqdj cukus@ço`Ùk djus ds fy, varoZLrq tksM+uk ;k ?kVkuk U;k;ky; ls çR;kf'kr ugha] fo'ks"kr% foKkiu ;k fof/kd vuqeksnu okys fu;eksa ds fuca/kuksa dks i<+rs le; & vkpk;Z ¼i;ZVu½ ds in ij fu;qfä ds fy, vihykFkhZ dh vik=rk ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ vf/kdkfjrk ds ijs gksus ds dkj.k dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrkA ¼2018½3 ,l lh lh 55 vuqlfjrA 1988 ¼lIyh-½ ,l lh lh 127 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 13½
¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & dsUæh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dks vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, vkiokfnd ç—fr ds loZxzkgh funs'k fn, x, & fjV U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdkji`PNk vf/kdkfjrk ç;qä dj fn, x, mä funs'k lqO;är% lkafo/kkfud vf/kdkfjrk ls dgha vf/kdA ¼iSjk 14½
¼9½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & fu;qfä ij vk{ksi & osru dk varj çfrnk; djus dk funs'k & loksZPp U;k;ky; ds bl vkns'k ls vufHkK vkSj çfrdwy fd vf/kdkji`PNk dh fjV tkjh djrs le; Hkh jkf'k dh olwyh ds fy, dksbZ funs'k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼2014½ 1 ,l lh lh 161 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14½
¼10½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & vlk/kkj.k lkafoèkkfud vf/kdkfjrk u rks fujadq'k gS] u vfu;af=r gh & og Lo-vf/kjksfir lhekvksa ds v/;/khu gS & lkafo/kkfud U;k;ky;ksa }kjk ;g vf/kdkfjrk ;g lqfuf'pr djrs gq, fd U;kf;d vuq'kklu fdlh Hkh çdkj ls cfy ugha p<+s- lkoèkkuh] lrdZrk vkSj pkSdlh ls ç;qä dh tkuk çR;kf'kr & fofu'p;ksa dh J`a[kyk esa ik¡pksa fjVksa esa ls çR;sd dh O;kfIr vkSj vk;ke dk /;kuiwoZd vkSj çkatyrk ls o.kZu fd;k x;k gS & vf/kdkji`PNk fjV rduhdh ç—fr dh gksus ds dkj.k mldk foLrkj dgha Hkh dqN Hkh vkPNkfnr djus ds fy, ugha fd;k tk ldrk] vf/kdkji`PNk vf/kdkfjrk ds ç;ksx ls lqlaxr çklafxd rF;ksa ds fcuk vUos"k.k djus ds fy, çkf/kdkfj;ksa dks foo'k djus ds fofo/k vokafNr funs'kksa }kjk fjV U;k;ky; dks vUos"k.k U;k;ky; esa vour djus ds fy, rks fcYdqy gh ughaA ¼iSjk 15½
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals, under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh (Uchcha Nyayalaya Ki Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, are directed against the impugned order dated 27.8.2019 passed in W.P. No.4308/2016 and, thus are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, reference to parties is in accordance with title of W.A. No.1598/2019.
2. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge, while exercising his discretionary jurisdiction under quo warranto, has quashed the order dated 30.9.2003 of appointment of appellant Sandeep Kulshrestha on the post of Professor (Tourism) in Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (for short “IITTM”), Gwalior, as also his regularization on the said post vide order dated 15.6.2007 and appointment to the post of Director IITTM, Gwalior vide order dated 25.6.2014 having found that he had secured appointment on the post of Professor (Tourism) by furnishing incorrect information. Besides, the learned Judge also directed that since at the time of appointment to the post of Professor (Tourism), the appellant was working on the post of Reader, therefore, he should also refund the difference of salary between the pay of Reader and Professor (Tourism)/Director IITTM-Gwalior, within a period of three months therefrom failing which the delayed refund would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum. That apart, the learned Single Judge inter alia issued directions to the CBI to start investigation against the appellant and all the OICs.
3. The factual matrix of the case may be summarized thus :
(i) In the month of January, 2003, respondent no.2/UOI issued an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Professor in Tourism at IITTM, Gwalior. The minimum qualifications as mentioned in the advertisement were as under :--
“Max Age : 50 years
Educational Qualifications:
An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research in which 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching and/or research at the University/National level institutions including experience of guiding research at doctoral level OR an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.”
(ii) In pursuance of the said advertisement, appellant Sandeep Kulshrestha also applied for the post of Professor (Tourism) and submitted his Curriculum Vitae (CV) disclosing his educational qualification and work experience together with experience certificates. The relevant portion of his CV reads thus:
| S.No. | Post held & payscale | Year | Classes | Department |
| 1 | Reader (12000-18300) | 26-02-98 to till date | PGDBM, DTM, MDP, EDP | Indian Institute of Tourism & Travel Management, Govt. of India, Govindpuri, Gwalior |
| 2 | Reader (3700-5700) | 29-01-97 | DTM, MDP, EDP 97 | Business Studies IITTM, ETC, Bhubaneswar, Orissa |
| 3 | Sr. Assistant Professor (3000-5000) | 25-02-96 to 27-01-97 | M.Com, MBA, MPA | Commerce Department, Madhav Post Graduate College |
| 4 | Asstt. Professor (2200-4000) | 25-02-91 to 24-02-96 | M.Com, MBA, MPA | Commerce Department, Madhav Post Graduate College Jiwaji University, Gwalior |
| 5 | Lecturer (2200-4000) | 25-08-90 to 24-02-91 | M.Phil, MBA | School of Commerce and Studies, Jiwaji University, Gwalior |
| 6 | Lecturer | 20-03-90 to 22-08-90 | M.Com | School of Commerce and Studies, Jiwaji University, Gwalior |
As such, the appellant claimed a total of more than 11 years of teaching experience, whereas for appointment on the post of Professor (Tourism), the requirement was 10 years post Graduate Teaching Experience in advertisement and 8 years under the recruitment rules.
(ii) The Selection Committee met on 24.2.2003. It interviewed 5 candidates for the post of Professor and also considered request of two candidates i
The court reinforced that appointments made by a selection committee should not be judicially reviewed unless there are clear statutory violations or evidence of bad faith.
Educational qualifications are essential for ensuring the quality of education and should not be overridden by teaching experience alone.
The court held that procedural strictness in recruitment must be balanced with fairness, allowing exceptions for valid experience certificates issued by authorized personnel even if not counter signe....
Point of law : The law of interpretation provides that whenever there is a general provision of law and also a special provision, if special provision is applicable to a particular facts and circumst....
The court upheld the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Professor, confirming compliance with UGC eligibility criteria and validating the selection process conducted by the university.
Post of Assistant Manager and Assistant Accountant - Power of Judicial Review on issue of equivalence of Degree - Court directs Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limi....
Point of Law : Central government had no authority to disagree with the recommendation of UGC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
