Dismissed

Sachichidanand Joshi v. Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2012WA/337/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an order upholding the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog to summon the Vice Chancellor of a university to testify on oath in an inquiry regarding selection process irregularities. The Bench held that since the appellant agreed to appear, no judicial intervention was needed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; the order dated 27.6.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld with no interference.

Sachichidanand Joshi Vs Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

WRIT APPEAL No. ‘ C53? /2o11

¶2

APPELLANT Sachichidanand Joshi, son of (Peti‘rioner) La‘re Shri SR. Joshi, aged 48 Occupafion-Ser‘vice, years, as Vice presen‘rly posfed ‘ Chancellor, Ktil'shabhau Thakr'e Patrakar‘ifa Avam Jan Sanchar‘ University, Raipur residen’r of Science College Campus, G.E. Row, Raipur (cs)

¶3

LVéhha’r‘risgarh Lok Aayog, ‘ Through fhe Secre‘rary, Chhd’rfisgarhl‘ Lok Aayog, ‘ Gandhi Chowk,^Raipur (CG) w2*f“"5hailendra Khandelwhl, son of Shri 5.5. Khan&el_wal, raged uboui 42 years, resident of 7/9 Nehru Nagar (Easf),’ Bhiali, Disfric‘r Du'rg (CG)

¶4

2 (1)^OFTHE

¶5

WRIT APPEAL UNDER^SECTION 2 (1)^OFTHE CHHATTISGARH^HIGHCCU-RT (APPEAL^TODIVISION

¶6

BENCH) ACT, 2007

¶7

HIGH CDURT^{OFGHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR}

¶8

DE: HON’BLE SHRI^JUSTICEl.M. QUDDUS! HON’ELE SHRI^{JUSTICEG.MINHAJUDDIN,JJ}

¶9

Per LM. QUDDUSI, J,

¶10

om JUDGMENT ¢^o\33.2012)

¶11

Thls appeal has been^med agamst^{theorderdated2762011} passed^{bytheleaxnedSmgleJudge1nWP(C)} No 1028 of 2011 (Sachichidancmd^{JoshiVs.Chhqttisgm‘hLokAayogandamiher)} dismissing the petiu‘on.

¶12

¶13

The appellant is Working as Vice Chancellor of Kushabhau Thakm Pau‘akarita Avam^{JanSancharUniversity,} Raipur (for brevity^“the University). The University is constituted^underthe of C.G. Kushabhau Thakre Panakarita Avam Jan provisions Sanchar Univexsity Act, 2004 (hereinafter^{referredtoastheAct,} 2004). As per the provisions of Section 4O of the Act, 2004, 1“”; appellant 1s Ex-omcw^{ChanmanoftheSelecuonCommitteeof} teachmg stan‘ The Umvers1ty 1ssued an^{advemsementmvmng} ‘

¶14

(I ‘1

¶15

applications for the post^{ofProfessor,ReaderandLecturerin} various subjects of Journalism, Mass Communieau'on, Electronic Media, Advertising and Public Relatioms 8s Management. Last date for submission of application^formwas 31.12.2007. Respondent No.2 has applied for the total eight posts of Lecturer and Reader in the subjects of Journalism, Mass Communication, Electronic^{Media,AdvertisingandPublic} Relations. Interview for appoiriunent on the respective posts (subjectwisey^were held on diEerent dates for din‘erent posts between 30.03.2008 and 05.04.2008 and othe result was declared on 19.09.2008. As the respondent no.2 remained unsuccessful and being dissatisned with the^selecn’on process, he tiled Writ Petition bearing W.P.(S).No.^{1976/2009andsought} the reliefts) that the authorities^{oftheUniversitybedirectedto} correct the internal distribution^{ofmarksofrespondentNo.2} and consequently after correcting the internal distribution of marks of merit, issue a hesh select list for the post of Lecturer/Reader and for that the authorities be directed to decide the representau'on of respondent no.2 in^{accordancewith} law. When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 14.05.2009, the petitioner] respondent No.2 did not press the relief clause No;10.1, 10.2 8a 10.4 and only prayed^totheextent that the Vice Chancellor be directed to decide the representation of respondent no.2. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to decide the representation of respondent No.2.

¶16

:J'I1-

¶17

pThe appellant being the Vice Chanceilor of the University, disposed of the representation rejecting the prayer of^respondent

¶18

No.2 v‘nie order dated 10.6.2009. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2009, respondent No.2 has med another writ petition^{beingW.P(S).No.5286/ 2009} inter-alia pleading that the action of the appellant authoxiiies is illegal and arbitrary and wanants interference by this Court and. reiterating his prayer that the appellant authorities be directed^{tocorrecttheinternal} distribution of marks of the petitioner^{andsubsequentlyafter} correcting the internal distribution of marks^{ofmerit,issuea} n‘esh selection list for the post^{ofLecturer] Readerandsetaside} the order dated 10.06.2009 passed^on the representation of respondent no.2. This apart, respondent^{No.2hasalsomadea} complaint against the appellant before respondent No.1 Lok Aayog under Section 8(1) of the C.G.^{LokAyogAct,2002forthe} alleged misconduct u/s 2m (1^{to3)of theAct,2002asalsou/ s} 13 (3)^{ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,1988ron25.03‘2009.} After receiving non'ce hum the^{Ayog,theUniversityhassupplied} all the documents as demanded^{byrespondentNo.1} and the university has taken a categorical^{standthatthecomplaintis} not maintainable as the matter is sub-judioe^{beforethisCourt.}

¶19

Thereafter, vide letter dated 1.12.2010, respondent no.1 called the appellant (Vice Chancellor of^{theUniversity)toexaminehim} with regard to award and determination of marks to the candidates in the interview on the basis of educational qualidcations. On 27.01.2011, the appellant submitted a detailed representation making his stand clear that^thematteris sub- juclice before the High Court and award^{ofmarksasalso} recommendations have been made by the Selection Committee and hence no complaint can be made against^{theappellantin}

¶20

’ J ‘ J

¶21

¶22

individual capacity. In his"representation, the appellant has further prayed that the notice issued to him for his personal appearance on 27.01.2011 may kindly be recalled and the complaint be dismissed. However, Vide order dated 29.1.2011 respondent No.1 Iejccted the application of the aypellant and directed the appellant to appear before the Aayog in his personal capacity for his examination on oath.

¶23

The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the Aayog prefeired writ petition being W.P.(C). no.1028/2011 before this Court pleading that as under the provisions^{ofsection7(4)oftheAct,2004,thecomplaintisnot} maintainable before respondent No.1 because the award of marks is pumly discretion of the Selections Committee, which is constituted as per the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, 2004 and thus the Ayog has exceeded its jun‘sdiction. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 29.01.2011 on the ground that the appellant has been arrayed avian accused, therefore, forcing him to give his statement on oath would violate the fundamental rights of the appellant enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bascwaiah wr.)^4s.Dr.EL. Ramash and otherst‘(2010) 8 SCCV372 wherein it has been held that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala ndes have been alleged against r the experts constituting theSelection Committee. It would j i, normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave ii the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of .

¶25

¶26

i. A

¶27

principle,^{thecourtsshouldnevermake.anendeavourtositin} appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realize and appreciate its constraints, and limitations in academic matters.

¶28

The stand of respondent No.1 is that when the Regisu‘ar of the University failed to furnish complete information regarding selection process, the Vice; Chancellor^{whowasalsoChairmanof} ‘Was the Selection Committee asked to furnish information. According to him, as the complete information^wasnotsentby the appellant, he was summoned to clarify the position^but when he failed to appear on 21.01.2011, perforce^theimpugned order was passed. The further stand of respondent no. 1 is that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of^{Indiaisnotattractedinthe} instant matter. On the contrary the Lok Aayog is empowered to look into the allegations made in the Complaint^{No.24] 2009,by} one of the candidates namely Shailendra Khandelwal, respondent no.2 as the appellant was the Vice Chwcellor and Chairman of the Selecn'on Committee. As the Registrar was not able to furnish relevant information, the appellant was summoned by the Lok Aayog in exercise of powers confened under section 10(1)(2) of the C.G.Lok Aayog Adhim'yam,^2002,by which respondent no.1 is competent to summon any public servant or any other person during the course'of inquiry including preliminaryrinquiry. The further stand of respondent no.1 is that’as per Sub section (4) of Section 10, the Aayog is competent to summon any public-^servant for production of documents and for giving evidence and the public servant^isnot

¶29

¶30

¶31

entitled to any privilege in respect ofthe production of document or the giving of evidence before the Lok Aayog.

¶32

In W.P(C). 1028/2011, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the peu‘tioner does not want to piess the ground that the petitioner cannot be called for adducing statement on oath. It was further stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to appear before the respondent no.1’along-with ail the at concerned documents to make statement on oath. Therefore the learned single Judge held that the main issue asto whether the Lok Aayog has jurisdiction to summon the petitioner to make statement on oath and produce all the relevant documents, does not survive for consideration in the said writ petition. Then the next contention of the petiu'oner was that the Lok Aayog should not go intothe illegality or validity of the selection process. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Basavaiah (Dr.) V. Dr. H.L.Ramesh and others (2010) 8 SCC 372 and 2006 (1) CGLJ 410 and Dr. Kamlesh Mishra Vs. Guru Ghasidas sag, Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur 83 others 2006 (1) CGLJ 410. 9. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition^on the ground that the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the issue before this Court is not with regard to irregularity or illegality or matahde^exerciseof powers^{involvingmisconduct,} The learned single judge has observed that in W.P(S).No. 19.76] 2009 respondent No.2 mainly sought relief that (I the authorities may be directed to correct the internal J ‘ ~ distribution of marks of the petitioner and issue a hesh select :3 I l list for the post of Lecturer] Reader and at the time of hearing of i

¶33

¶34

W.P(S).1976/2009 did not press the‘other^{relietls)exceptthat} his repmsentation be decided which^{wasorderedon04.05.2009.} Thereafter respondent No.2 preferred another petition being W.P(S).No. 5286/2009 reiterating the^same yrayer^assoughtin the earlier petition, and in addih'on prayed quashing^{of theorder} dated 10.06.2009 passed by the University^{onhisrepresentation} dated 08.03.2009. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge has held that in both the^abovewrit petitions,^theissue before this Court was not with regard^{toirregularity,illegalityor} malajide exercise of power involving^misconduct. However, the O$ce of the Lok Ayog was^.fully competent to go into the allegations of misconduct.

¶35

The issne raised in this appeal is that for the^{actofselection} committee, misconduct cannot‘be^{attributedtotheappellantin} his individual capacity.

¶36

It appears that initially prayer was made^{inW.P(C).1028[2011} to quash the order dated 29.01.201 1‘ passed by respondent^No.1 but later on in the written submissions nled by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been submitted^{thatthoughthe} petitioner^{inthesaidwrit} petition^hastakena gmund^thatthe pedtioner^{cannotbecalledforadducingthestatementonoath,} but the petitioner does not want to press this^{relief atthisstage.} As such the prayer contained in Para 10.3^{ofthereliefclause} was given up. Therefore, there remained a limited prayer and the learned Single Judge confined the petitioner’s arguments^to the question of grant of other remaining relietls). Since the writ

¶37

“appellant himself has agreed to appear before the Lok Ayog, we

¶38

¶39

are of the^{opinionthatthere} is nothing left^{forthiscourtto} decide in this^apycal.

¶40

In viow of^{thoabove,wedo} not^{1indanygoodgroundWananting} interference^{intheimpugnedorderdated27.6.2011passedby} the leamed^{SingleJudge.Theappealfailsand} is dismissed.^No

¶41

, order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/— . X G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶43

Sd/_
I.M.Quddusi
Judge I

Sachichidanand Joshi v. Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachichidanand Joshi v. Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Nahru

Bajaj Allianz General Insurnce Co. Vs Amit Kumar and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Vs Arundhati Bai and Ors.

Leeladhar Prasad Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sarju Prasad Dansena and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Auto Insurance Kinetic Finance Ltd. Vs Smt. Dushila Parganiya and Ors.