The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of a provision governing the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, imposing costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner.

The Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma found that the PIL was filed to settle personal scores with the Vice-Chancellor, against whom the petitioner harboured a personal vendetta. The Court also noted that the petitioner had suppressed mandatory disclosures regarding pending and decided criminal, civil and revenue proceedings against him.

While leaving the constitutional challenge open for consideration in an appropriate case, the Court observed that it must remain vigilant to ensure that its process is not abused by persons pursuing oblique motives or collateral objectives.

“The jurisdiction of public interest litigation is intended to advance the cause of public justice and cannot be permitted to be converted into an instrument for settling private disputes, vindicating personal grievances or bringing adversaries to terms. It is neither a forum for pursuing personal vendettas nor a mechanism for wreaking vengeance against an individual under the guise of espousing a public cause.”

For context, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Professor at the Sardar Patel University of Police, and had filed a PIL challenging the appointment of its Vice Chancellor on the grounds that the concerned individual did not possess requisite qualifications prescribed under the University Grants Commission (“UGC”) Regulations, 2018.

Furthermore, the petitioner had also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 11(1) of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012 (the “Act”) that empowered the Chancellor to appoint the Vice Chancellor.

It was argued by the petitioner that the provision did not prescribe any eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor which was violative of the regulations framed by the UGC, 2018 and conferred unguided discretion on the chancellor.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the PIL was filed by the petitioner without following the requirement prescribed under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which required mandatory disclosures including pending cases. It was submitted that several civil and criminal cases were pending against the petitioner which were suppressed.

After hearing the contentions and perusing the records, the Court highlighted that the petitioner held certain personal grudges and complaints against the respondent, which were camouflaged in the form of filing this PIL.

It was revealed that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor, and the concerned respondent was serving his first term as the vice chancellor, certain proceedings were initiated by the latter against the petitioner by filing criminal complaints and disciplinary proceedings, under IPC, POSH, and Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992.

The Court highlighted that during 2020-2023, no grievance was raised by the petitioner regarding the appointment of the respondent. It was only after the proceedings were initiated, and the respondent was re-appointed, that the PIL was filed in 2024, to settle scores.

The Court held that if the petitioner was acting bona fide and with genuine intent to further a cause of public interest, he should have approached the Court at the time of initial appointment of the respondent. However, the sequence of events was reflective of the fact the litigation was nothing but an attempt to wrack personal vengeance.

“A genuine public cause must not become a cloak behind which personal malice, private interests, vested interests or publicity-oriented motives are sought to be advanced…The legitimacy of a public interest litigation, therefore, rests not merely upon the nature of the relief sought, but equally upon the bona fides, credibility and genuine public spiritedness of the person invoking such extraordinary jurisdiction.”

Furthermore, the Court referred to Rule 385-F (7) of the 1952 Rules that provided for mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner had conveniently concealed the particulars of the pending/decided cases against him.

“The conduct of the petitioner in view of the discussions made above dis-entitles him from raising any dispute with respect to the validity of the rules in the shape of the public interest litigation.”

In this background, the Court opined that it was inappropriate to examine the question which was raised in the PIL regarding the constitutional validity of the provision.

Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed and a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh was imposed on the petitioner to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.