1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4788/2007. S.P. Mehra Vs. Mohan Lal Sukhadia University & Ors. Date of Order :: 27th August 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr. P.S. Bhati, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: While stating that the respondent University is a prestigious educational institution; and while claiming himself to have acquired higher qualification and being eligible to be considered in the arena of teaching faculties; and while proclaiming that he carries such high credentials in his field that surely none of the competitors would be enjoying such caliber and such work; and while stating that process of inviting applications was initiated (by the respondent University) for the posts of Guest Teachers in Environmental Science along with other subjects; and while alleging that the parameters of advertisements such as the payments were changed by the University without informing the candidates, the petitioner has averred in this writ petition that he appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.07.2006 (Annex.2) but could not succeed due to 'the selective prejudicial attitude masking the whole process at the hands of respondent No.2', the Vice Chancellor. 2 While alleging that the selection process all over the University has been manipulated so as to give benefit to the favoured persons of respondent No.2, the petitioner has proceeded to state that it was a matter of grave concern that the respondent No.2 was at the helm of the affairs and has asserted that the respondent No.2 has damaged the institution to such an extent that the faith of the petitioner and the common people has been shattered. The petitioner would state several allegations including that many people have been regularised at the personal whims and fancies of respondent No.2 by way of simple endorsement (a copy of one such regularisation order dated 18.07.2005 has been annexed as Annexure-3); that the University Co-operative Store was functioning under the shadow of financial bungling; that the activities of developing gardens was being carried out at the place which was entirely on stone and rocks; that the funds and resources are diversified for personal usage of respondent No.2; that the said respondent has manipulated the selection process to give appointment to his daughter-in-law, his close relatives and other incompetent persons even when they retired after completion of proper term and then, to the son of his sister and brother (a newspaper report has been filed in that regard as Annexure-4); that the respondent No.2 committed grave financial irregularities as Dean College of 3 Science between September 2001 and August 2004 and the investigation pertaining to the same has been scuttled; that the respondent No.2 has been misutilising the facilities by touring extensively along with family members, sadhus, and friends at various places of pilgrimage whereas there is a categorical order against him barring such travelling of other persons in educational tours; that a lactating cow was gifted by Agricultural University which was purchased by them three days ago and then declared useless even when it was yielding 15 litres of milk per day and it was a case of personal gain not befitting the office of Vice Chancellor; that the respondent No.2 has accommodated various persons as examiners who were not eligible using his personal influence; that he favoured the candidates to get Ph.D. without going through the process and without verifying viva voce; that the examiners proceeded to award 97% marks to an absent candidate even when the top position holder could score 80% marks in practical examinations of M.Sc.; that there were manipulations in appointing internal examiners in Environmental Science Department to favour certain persons; that various tours of Chhattisgarh and Bundelkhand University were approved by him even when there were irregularities; that official machinery was utilised and misappropriated including vehicle for the examinations of his daughter and daughter-in-law; that he 4 participated in an International Conference at the University expenses though had no actual participation or direct role; that he has managed his authored books in all the libraries for personal gains even when they do not match the standards; that various activities like tuitions having grave implications upon the student community were sprawling under the silent approval of the Vice Chancellor as he was deeply involved in coaching and tuitions till two years ago; that there had been audit remarks and recovery notes against the Vice Chancellor; that the person working as University Engineer is not a graduate in Engineering and is entangled in fake degree case and is directly managing crores of rupees of construction and there had been open allegations against Vice Chancellor for such misappropriation (a compilation of newspaper reports has been annexed as Annexure-5). The petitioner has stated that certain representations were sent by reputed people to stem the rot in the University due to the illegalities committed by the respondent No.2 and the petitioner also wrote and spoke to some of the authorities but in vain. The petitioner has asserted that he had so many reasons to agitate for the betterment of the institution and of course personal deprivation; and has stated that he made so many of representations but the representations 'perhaps did not make a mark because of pressure tactics adopted by the 5 respondent No.2'. A copy of representation has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-6. The petitioner has stated himself being aggrieved of personal deprivation due to respondent No.2 and deteriorating condition of the University and has sought the reliefs that the respondents may be directed to declare the method by which guest faculty are selected; the process initiated on 18.07.2006 may be quashed; the Court may verify from the record as to whether any other person had equivalent excellence; that the respondents authorities may be directed to enquire into the malafides and acts of personal gains of respondent No.2; and that the respondents may be directed to come out with exact details of appointments made on each post and such appointments may be scrutinised and the undeserving candidates may be replaced by deserving one which could be ascertained after adopting due process of law. Learned counsel Dr. P.S. Bhati arguing for the petitioner has contended that the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered in lawful manner and thus he seeks to challenge the selection process that stands vitiated for personal mala fides of respondent No.2; that there had not been any rules, norms or regulations for appointments and the petitioner's apprehension is that he has been denied because of lack of procedure and mala fide particularly when the 6 respondent No.2 wanted to favour his kith and kins. A comprehensive look at the contents of the writ petition makes it clear that the petition is nothing but a charter of allegations and charges against the respondent No.2, conceived and framed by the petitioner whereupon the petitioner has chosen to pronounce his judgment too. The petition is replete with mere allegations against the respondent No.2 with no cogent and convincing material to even take such allegations worth consideration. Looking to the averments taken in the petition, this court is constrained to observe that mere compiling of several allegations and presenting them embellished with variety of adjectives and phrases cannot lead to a right to relief so as maintain an action before the courts of law. The petitioner has gone to the extent of making oblique comment that the representations made to the Chancellor and the State Government “perhaps did not make a mark because of pressure tactics adopted by the respondent No.2” (vide paragraph 24). It sounds entirely indiscreet on the part of the petitioner to make such comments without any basis and without any justification. This Court is clearly of opinion that the writ jurisdiction is not available for the purpose of hurling out allegations against an authority or functionary without their co-relation with the legal right sought to be claimed by the petitioner 7 concerned. In the volume of allegations made against the respondent No.2 for his so-called illegal acts and deeds, it is difficult to find any specific aspect co-related with the petitioner; and co-related with the selections sought to be questioned. There is no cogent and convincing material to even suspect, what to say of concluding, that the selection process in question was vitiated for and because of the respondent No.2; or for any other illegality. In nutshell, only this much could be said that the petitioner offered his candidature in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.07.2006; and was not selected; and more than one year thereafter has chosen to file this writ petition on 07.08.2007 in the name of so-called 'reasons to agitate for betterment of the institution and of course personal deprivation'. The wide range of allegations as made in this petition against the respondent No.2 do not make out any case of any existing cause of action in the petitioner. So far the so-called personal deprivation is concerned, as noticed, apart from the fact that there is no co-relation of the allegations made in the petition with the case sought to be stated by the petitioner, the fact fundamentally remains that the petitioner did appear in the selection process offering his candidature; and was not selected. The suggestion of bias against the petitioner or in favour of any other person as 8 whispered in the writ petition, filed a year after selection ,does not make out any case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner was obviously aware of the selection procedure too; and took his chance, as alleged; and it appears that only for having been unsuccessful, has chosen to file this petition a year thereafter now alleging bias and want of adequate procedure. There is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has been deprived of selection because of any bias or any mala fide or for any illegality; and in any case, if the petitioner is credited with knowledge of such facts as sought to be made the basis of this petition, then he must be deemed to have been conscious of his legal rights; and his failure to take the plea at the earlier stage of proceedings creates an effective bar of waiver against him. The other reliefs as claimed by the petitioner are in the nature of seeking a fishing enquiry on the functioning of the institution on the basis of bald allegations; and are beside the point. Viewed from any angle, this petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. //Mohan// (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.