The Rajasthan High Court imposed a Cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction that the appointment of the respondent no.5 upon the post of Vice Chancellor of the Bikaner Technical University Bikaner may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and against the provision of Section 11 of the Bikaner Technical University Act, 2017.
The respondent no.4- Registrar, Bikaner Technical University issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Vice Chancellor, whereafter, the Governor of Rajasthan (Chancellor of the University) vide order dated 30.04.2021 appointed the respondent no.5 as Vice Chancellor of the University.
Thereafter, as soon as the petitioner came to know about the conduct of the respondents and that the respondent no.5 was not qualified for the post in question, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation through E-mails to the concerned authority on various occasions seeking removal of the respondent no.5 from the post in question, but all such efforts of the petitioner went in vain. Thus, being aggrieved thereby, the PIL petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
The Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the petitioner relied upon the representation/report dated 25.03.2022 written by the Registrar of the Bikaner Technical University to the respondent-State regarding the irregularities committed by the respondent no.5 while holding the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University. Thereafter, the State Government constituted a two-member Committee and the said committee has opined in its report in favour of the respondent no.5.
The Court further observes that all the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in the previous orders, and the only aspect relating to cost to be imposed upon the petitioner is under consideration.
On the previous occasion i.e. 06.10.2023, the Committee report was furnished before the Coordinate Bench of the Court for perusal in a sealed envelope, and in the said report, while recording exoneration of the respondent no.5, it was observed that the complaint filed against the respondent no.5 was without any basis. The Coordinate Bench of the High Court passed another order dated 17.10.2023, clearly observing that the instant case, owing to the previous orders, needs to be considered only on the aspect of imposition of the cost upon the petitioner.
The Court also observes that the respondent no.5 has been exonerated, from the allegations levelled against him, by the Committee constituted by the Governor, and thus, nothing is left to be considered in the present PIL petition, except the aspect of imposition of cost, as observed by this Hon’ble Court on the previous occasions.
The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case.
The Court further observes that the counsel for the petitioner raised the issues of character and conduct of the Vice Chancellor (respondent no.5), reference whereof has also been made in the FIR, but in the opinion of the Court, the character and conduct are to be seen at the threshold; however, after the report of the Committee constituted by the Governor, nothing remains in the issue. The counsel has also raised the issue that the Vice Chancellor did not have mandatory experience of 10 years of Professorship, instead such experience possessed by the said Vice Chancellor is that of 9½ years, but the Court is satisfied that as per the work chart, apart the said 9½ years work experience, the Vice Chancellor had worked for three years as Director, which, as per the learned counsel for the University, only a Full-time Professor can work.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, the Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present PIL Petition.
“Consequently, the present Public Interest Litigation Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which is also in tandem with the previous order of cost already passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in this matter. The said cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee, Jodhpur within a period of 30 days from today, and in case the same is not deposited within the said period, then the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Committee, Jodhpur shall take all the necessary steps to recover such costs from the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The report of the Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Governor, which has completely exonerated the respondent No.5 and as examined by this Court in its order dated 06.10.2023, shall be retained in record, in a sealed cover. All pending applications stand disposed of”, the order reads.