In a Writ Petition under Article 226, petitioners challenged the appointment and promotion of an individual to a university post via quo warranto. The Court dismissed the PIL as misconceived and not maintainable, noting prior Supreme Court Commission reports confirming the respondent's eligibility.
Petition dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7278 of 2021
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binodanand Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, AAG 6 Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. J. K. Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)
Date : 23-08-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners have prayed for following relief:
“ For issuance of a writ of quo warranto holding
and declaring that the appointment of respondent no.8 as a lecturer in the Subject Ancient Indian History and Culture in
Patna High Court CWJC No.7278 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 2/3
Parwati Science College, Madhepura (herein after College) and his subsequent promotion to the post of Reader and University Professor is nonest in law. He is a usurper and is not entitled to hold the post. His appointment and promotion is fit to be quashed. The petitioners also pray for any other relief (s) which may be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Counter affidavit has been filed by the University in which, a preliminary objection has been raised regarding maintainability of present public interest litigation in service matter. In public interest litigation petition, writ of quo warranto can be issued by High Court against persons who are usurper of the office and are not eligible to hold the office. However, in present case, petitioners have challenged the appointment of respondent no.8 as a lecturer in the subject Ancient Indian History and Culture although Justice Agarwal Commission and Justice S. B. Sinha Commission have held respondent no.8 eligible for appointment w.e.f. 31.3.1990 and report of both the Commissions, have been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all the objections to the report were rejected.
It has lastly been stated that enquiry commission
Patna High Court CWJC No.7278 of 2021 dt.23-08-2021 3/3
constituted by Hon’ble Supreme Court after detailed hearing, had observed in respect of respondent no.8 that he should be treated to have been appointed on 21.3.1990 when he obtained his Master’s degree in Ancient Indian History and has approved his absorption.
The present PIL is misconceived and is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
veena/-Rajiv
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 06.11.2021 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable to challenge the appointment of an individual who is declared eligible by Supreme Court-appointed Commissions.
Whether the present public interest litigation is fit to be entertained given the findings of higher authorities regarding the respondent's eligibility.
Arun Kumar Yadav
Baidyanath Yadav
The State of Bihar
B.N. Mandal University
Lalan Pd Adri
Sanjay Karol
S. Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
