- This topic is empty.
10/10/2022 at 22:35 #112126Tina DUGuest
(A) UGC Regulations are mandatory and not recommendatory on the statutory
authority vested in the UGC under Section 26. It lends
credence to the proposition that the 2000 Regulations carry
the force of statute and are this liable to be enforced through
a writ of quo warranto.
(B) An outsider possesses the necessary locus standi to question an appointment in violation of the UGC Regulations
which have the force of statute.
(C) The limited inquiry to be conducted by the Court while considering a writ of quo warranto is not whether the selected
candidate was the more qualified candidate for the post, but
rather, whether his credential fell below the minimum
statutory bar imposed by the Regulations.
(D) Selection Committee sits as an expert body to consider the suitability of the academic qualifications of the candidates
which a Court should not and, as a matter of law, cannot
review on merits.
As the Supreme Court noted in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655:
“20. From the discussion and analysis, the following principles emerge:
(a) Except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable
in service matters.
(b) For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to
satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
Indeed, that a writ of quo warranto may be issued for appointments contrary to statutory rules is an established principle of law under Article
226 is clear from the decisions in The Mor Modern Cooperative
Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to
Govt. Haryana and Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 269 and recently in Central
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors., 2013
(13) SCALE 477
Thus, barring clear cases where a writ of quo warranto can be issued, Courts cannot take upon themselves the task of a “merits review” of appointments to public or such like offices (Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) & Anr., 2011 (4) SCC
Other decisions (R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (4) SCC
119; Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
& Ors. 1998 (7) SCC 273, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 (1) SCC 590, and Ashok Kumar Pandey
v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 349) have
declared that there can be no public interest litigation in service matters.
issuance of a writ of quo warranto is discretionary and such a writ should be issued only upon a clear finding that the appointment to a public office was contrary to the statute.” (Arun Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 375)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.