 Vice-Chancellor Lt. Gen. Dr Bipin Puri (Retd.).){kind=link}
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the PIL demanding investigation against King George’s Medical University (KGMU) Vice-Chancellor Lt. Gen. Dr Bipin Puri (Retd.).
A Single Bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order while hearing a PIL filed by Shrikant Singh.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ostensibly filed in public interest, makes the following prayers:
“(i) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to ensure an effectual enquiry against opposite party No 4 to be done under the law by any independent agency on the complaint lodged by petitioner contained in annexure No 1 to this petition.
(ii) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing and commanding the opposite parties to conclude the enquiry as directed by O.P No 2 contained in Annexure no.6 to this petition.
(iii) Any other order or direction the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
The Court examined the averments made in the writ petition and the enclosures annexed thereto, what the Court found is that certain alleged irregularities in appointments of certain posts made in the University have been asserted. It is in this background that the prayer in the writ petition has been made seeking a direction to the opposite parties to conduct an enquiry against respondent no 4, who is the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In effect, the grievance raised in the Public Interest Litigation apparently is in relation to the appointments made in the University.
In the aforesaid background, when the court required the counsel for the petitioner to apprise the Court as to what are the credentials of the petitioner, he has drawn the court attention to the affidavit filed along with the petition which has been described as “affidavit of petitioner about his personal credential”.
The Court noted that,
Thus, apart from saying that the petitioner is a social worker and whistle blower, nothing has been stated by him about his credentials. He has only stated in the said affidavit that he has made complaints about the alleged irregularities committed by the ViceChancellor of King George’s Medical University and about financial loss said to have been committed by him.
The Court in a Division Bench judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court dated 15.12.2021 in the case of Devki Nandan Pandey vs State of U.P and others, P.I.L has relied upon the judgment in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) after quoting Rule 1(3-A) of Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules and dismissed the said Public Interest Litigation Petition being not satisfied on the credentials of the petitioner, who invoked the PIL jurisdiction of the Court in the said case.
“When we examine the credentials of the petitioner as disclosed by him in the affidavit which has been quoted above, in addition to the other averments made in the writ petition, we gather a feeling that the petitioner, in fact, seeks to get certain appointments made against certain post in the Medical University, annulled. Such, in our opinion, cannot be the scope of any Public Interest Litigation Petition. Even otherwise in service related matters, the Public Interest Litigation Petition would not be maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.