IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:-08.09.2025 Ashutosh Mishra ...Petitioner Versus The Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present : Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for declaring the appointment of respondent No.3 as Lecturer, Kurukshetra University as illegal and for cancelling his appointment as it has been made in violation of the university rules and regulations.

2. Petitioner has averred that Kurukshetra University advertised five posts of Lecturers in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication vide advertisement, Annexure P1. This department was later converted as Institute of Mass Communication and Media Technology (IMCMT). It has been alleged that respondent No.3 was appointed to the post despite the fact that he did not possess the requisite academic record and experience. Petitioner claims to have submitted various representations to the university and when the university did not respond, he filed the instant petition.

3. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner has been questioned on the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition. He has submitted that petitioner is a scholar of Mass Communication and is disturbed by the falling standards in the field of Mass Communication. Counsel emphasizes that petitioner was working at Kurukshetra University from 1995 to 2006 before joining Chitkara University, Punjab as a Professor and Dean, School of Mass Communication. Counsel asserts that petitioner has the locus to maintain the petition.

4. Petition has been vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents, who have taken a stand that petitioner has concealed vital facts from this Court. Besides justifying the appointment of respondent No.3 as a Lecturer, it has been contended that petitioner has filed various writ petitions levelling false allegations.

5. After having heard counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court is of the view that petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the instant petition.

6. Undoubtedly, the rule of locus standi is somewhat relaxed in a writ of quo warranto and it is not as strict as in other types of writs. It may not be necessary for the petitioner in a writ of quo warranto to show that he has suffered any personal injury or has any personal grievance for maintaining the said petition. However, in order to succeed, petitioner has to establish that the private respondent is holding a “public office” or “public post” and he does not fulfill the statutory eligibility conditions and is not qualified for the post. Writ of quo warranto affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds a substantive public office or post is called upon to show as to by what right he holds the said office. Proceedings of quo warranto are intended to protect the public office/post from usurpers of such office. The nature of office in respect of which quo warranto writ would lie has to be an office which has been created by or under the Constitution or any statute. Furthermore, the post in question must be invested with duties in the nature of public duties or the holder is vested with power or duty of acting in execution for enforcement of law.

7. Dealing with the challenge to the appointment of an Associate Professor, who was later on promoted, on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Shri H.T. Umesh and Others Versus State of Karnataka and Ors. Law Finder Doc Id # 2717915 held as under:

“6.1 An Associate Professor or the Professor, as respondent No.5 is, may be part of the faculty, but for all purposes including functional, he is an employee of the U