HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8649 of 2010 Dated: 03-06-2010 Between: Syed Taraq Quadri. … Petitioner And Ministry for Human Resource Development, Government of India, rep. by its Secretary & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8649 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is an Advocate, has filed this writ petition, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the recommendations of the Committee constituted for appointment of Vice-Chancellor to the 3rd respondent-University, as null and void, and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a fresh Committee as per Statute, to identify a scholar to be appointed as Vice- Chancellor of the 3rd respondent-University. The 3rd respondent-Maulana Azad National Urdu University is a Central University, constituted under Act 2 of 1997. It was established in the year 1998. Professor Sri A.M.Pathan was the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who took charge on 19th March 2004. Consequent upon his appointment as a Vice-Chancellor of Karnataka Central University, he relinquished the post of Vice- Chancellor of Maulana Azad National Urdu University, on 28th February 2009. In view of relinquishment of post by the former Vice- Chancellor, respondents have taken steps to constitute a Search Committee to select the Vice-Chancellor in the place of Prof.Sri A.M.Pathan. As per the scheme of the Universities Act, there is also a post of Pro Vice-Chancellor and one Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed was acting as a Pro Vice-Chancellor when Prof. Sri A.M.Pathan has relinquished his post as a Vice-Chancellor of the University. As per the provisions of the Statute, for constitution of Search Committee to select Vice-Chancellor, two members are to be nominated by the Executive Body of the University and one person will be nominated by the visitor, the Hon’ble President of India, and such nominee will be the Convenor of the Committee. The Executive Counsel proposed two names to the Search Committee, namely, Prof. Sri G.M.Qazi, Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Hamdard and Dr. Rama Murthy Naidu, former member of the University Grants Commission. The Hon’ble President of India nominated Dr. Ubaid Siddiqi to be the member convenor of the Committee. The petitioner has not filed any proceeding, constituting the Search Committee by the Government of India for selection of Vice-Chancellor of the University. Without questioning any such proceeding, in this writ petition, the petitioner seeks invalidation of the constitution of such committee mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Statute, the Executive Council has to recommend two names and in the meeting of the Executive Council, one Dr.K.R.Iqbal Ahmed, who himself was aspiring for the post of Vice-Chancellor, has participated and nominated the members to the Search Committee. The further objection of the petitioner is that Dr.Ubaid Siddiqi was the former Vice-Chancellor of the University, and as such, he cannot be the member of the Search Committee, and the same runs contrary to the provisions of the Statute of the University, framed under the Universities Act. A detailed counter affidavit is filed, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in view of the resignation of the Vice-Chancellor, in terms of the provisions contained under Statute 2(7) of the Universities Act, charge of the Vice-Chancellor was handed over to Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed, who was the Pro Vice-Chancellor, and the same is not in deviation to the Rules. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed chaired the meeting of the Committee in the capacity of Pro Vice-Chancellor, since Prof. Sri A.M.Pathan has resigned and the charge was given to Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed. It is stated that there is no illegality committed merely because Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed has chaired the Executive Committee meeting, which nominated two members for the purpose of constituting Search Committee. Counter also states that the nomination of Dr. Ubaid Siddiqi as Convenor of the Committee by Hon’ble The President of India as Visitor of the University in exercise of powers vested under Statute 2(1) of the Universities Act, cannot be challenged by the petitioner. Counter further states that based on the recommendations of the Search Committee, Prof. Sri Mohammad Miyan is appointed as Vice- Chancellor of the University and he assumed charge on 14.05.2010. Though the petitioner alleges that Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed could not have chaired the Executive Committee Meeting, but in terms of the Statute of the University, when a Vice-Chancellor has resigned in view of his appointment as a Vice-Chancellor of Karnataka Central University, the charge was handed over to Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed, who is a Pro Vice-Chancellor. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that Prof. Sri K.R.Iqbal Ahmed was also a candidate aspiring for the post of Vice-Chancellor, but as it is stated that another person by name Prof. Sri Mohammad Miyan is appointed, the said allegation of the petitioner appears to be without any basis. Though the petitioner refers to Statute 2(2) of the Universities Act, according to which, an employee of the University cannot be a member of Search Committee, but a former Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be an employee of the University, so as to incur disqualification to be the member of such Committee for the purpose of making recommendations for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the allegations made by the petitioner over constitution of Search Committee. The petitioner has also not stated in the affidavit as to in what way he is affected with the recommendations made by the Search Committee. There is yet another reason to reject this writ petition, because, based on the recommendations of the Search Committee, already appointment is made, appointing Prof. Sri Mohammad Miyan as a Vice-Chancellor. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not taken any further steps to assail the consequential steps taken based on the recommendations of the Search Committee, no relief can be granted as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd June 2010 ajr