The Karnataka High Court dismissed the two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) questioning the appointment of Vice Chancellor of Visvesvaraya Technological University.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the subject appointment is liable to be voided for the following reasons:
(i) The Search Committee was wrongly constituted inasmuch as two of its members were associated with the affairs of the respondent–University and there was no UGC nominee in the said Committee.
(ii) The 3rd respondent (Vice Chancellor) appointee lacked requisite qualification both in terms of Section 13 of the Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 and the ‘UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018’. His academic performance was very bad.
(iii) The 3rd respondent does not have good credentials as are required for the high office of the Vice Chancellor of a University and that he has some criminal antecedents too.
After considering the PILs, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said that one who invokes PIL jurisdiction, more particularly with a prayer for a Writ of Quo Warranto, has to approach the court with ‘clean heart, clean mind and clean objective’ vide STATE OF JHARKAND vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541.
“Their contention that because of the caveat entered by the 3rd respondent qua Dr.K.Mahadev, he has setup Prof.B.Shivaraj to file an independent petition, cannot be discounted in the pleaded circumstances. The text, tenor & language of these petitions are ditto, barring in those paragraphs which mention personal credentials of the petitioners. These are ‘copy-paste’ petitions couched in verbatim duplicate language. The same counsel on record represents the petitioners has drafted these petitions, does not dilute our this impression, even in the least. The persons presenting & prosecuting social action litigations should act in bonafide; those seeking to secure vengeance qua certain private parties cannot be granted indulgence by the Court of Constitutional jurisdiction vide CHANCHALPATI DAS vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, wherein it is observed that parties cannot take up court proceedings as a platform for settling their personal scores or for nurturing their personal ego.”
The counsel for the petitioners has advanced his contentions as to the violation of UGC Guidelines of 2018 whilst forming the Search Committee and later treating its recommendation for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. He pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court to the effect that these Guidelines are mandatory and have to be followed notwithstanding the provisions of State enactments in variance thereto.
It has been a settled position in the domain of public law that where a litigant, more particularly dominant litis is not fair in approaching the court inasmuch as he has not laid bear all facts including those of his credentials, ordinarily, the lis will not be examined on merits. The Apex Court in K.JAYARAM vs. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815, has observed:
“… a prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, a writ court would indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party which is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter…”