S.11 CPC | Second Writ Petition On Identical Grounds Not Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointment Of Kazi Nazrul University Registrar

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to nullify the appointment of the Registrar of Kazi Nazrul University, West Bengal, on the grounds that such an appointment was made on the basis of an erroneous advertisement, which did not conform to the UGC Regulations, 2018 or the All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) Regulations, 2010.A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted that while there was no inconsistency between the UGC/AICTE Regulations and the impugned notification, identical reliefs had earlier been sought for in another writ petition, which had already been dismissed on merits. In holding that a second writ petition on the same grounds would be barred under the principles of res judicata, the Bench opined:“In the said writ petition, which was the public interest litigation, prayer was made to issue a writ of quo warranto against the 6th respondent and the challenge was to his qualification qua the AICTE Regulation/UGC Regulations. The matter was considered on merits and the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 05.06.2023. The said order has become final. Therefore, a second writ petition for the very same relief is not maintainable, more so when the grounds raised in the present writ petition also touches upon the eligibility/qualification of the 6th respondent. The petitioner cannot be permitted to have a piece-meal challenge of the appointment of the 6th respondent on the ground that certain grounds ought to have been raised in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata.”It was the case of the petitioners that the notifications issued by the UGC and AICTE laying down the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment to academic positions would have the force of statute and that according to the UGC Regulations on appointment of registrars, the impugned appointee had neither completed the necessary years of experience, nor did they belong to the eligible academic pay-level.It was argued that while the State could decide to impose higher standards than those prescribed by the UGC Regulations, it could not dilute the provisions thereunder, and as such impugned appointment be set aside.The respondents on the other hand argued that the Registrar/6th respondent satisfies the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 07.12.2022. It was further argued that the aforesaid advertisement was in conformity with the UGC Regulations 2018, with the only difference being that instead of academic level, the relevant pay-scale had been mentioned. It was therefore submitted that there was no error in the impugned advertisement.The respondents, compared the impugned notification to that of Bankura University, and pointed out that the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Registrar therein is identical to the advertisement issued by the respondent University dated 07.12.2022, which was in accordance with the UGC/AICTE Regulations. It was also submitted by the respondents that the writ petition would not be maintainable on the grounds that an earlier petition (WPA (P) 223 of 2023) had been dismissed on merits, being a public interest litigation, which contained identical averments to the present petition. It was thus submitted, that such a petition would be hit by the principles of res judicata, and be non-maintainable. Appointment of Registrar not illegal according to UGC/AICTE RegulationsThe first question which the Court needed to consider, was whether the appointment of the Registrar was in accordance with the UGC Regulations, and whether the advertisement for the post of Registrar had conformed to the aforesaid regulations as well. In holding that there was no inconsistency between the impugned advertisement, the AICTE Regulations 2010, and the UGC Regulations 2018, the Bench opined:In this writ petition, we are concerned about the post of Registrar of the respondent University. The advertisement mentions the essential qualifications…the issue would be as to whether the said essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 07.12.2022 is in consonance with the notification issued by the UGC. The Central Government by notification dated 02.11.2017 has communicated to the UGC, the minimum qualification for direct recruitment of Registrar/Finance Officers/Controller of Examination. A comparison of the essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 07.12.2022 with clause (b) of the qualification prescribed by the Government of India shows that the same are identical. Further as per AICTE Regulations, 2010, three designations in respect of teachers, universities and colleges were notified as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professors…the details of employment experience as given by the 6th respondent in the application/recruitment form shows that the he was a Lecturer in the Bengal ...

S.11 CPC | Second Writ Petition On Identical Grounds Not Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointment Of Kazi Nazrul University Registrar

Srinjoy Das

Tags