Dr. Deenanath Sharma vs Union of India and others

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (ORAL)

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

We heard Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Sanjay Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1; Shri Vikas Pandey,

learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Monika Pant, learned counsel for

respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would submit that respondent No. 8 has been selected to be appointed

as Chancellor and the order of appointment of respondent No. 8 is yet to be issued. He would point out that due to non appointment of Chancellor, the

affairs of the University has come to a standstill and the selection of 8th respondent had come to a halt in view of the order of status quo passed by

this Court on 20th June, 2018.

Shri M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that actually the 8th respondent is a Member of the Board of Management of the

University and, therefore, his selection falls foul of Clause 24 of the Memorandum of Association. Secondly, it is submitted that no advertisement was

issued as was done in the year 2013 before the selection was made. He would lastly also submit that being a Member of the Board of Management,

the 8th respondent is to be treated as a Member of the Society and, therefore, his selection falls foul under Clause 24. Shri M.C. Pant would further

also submit that consent of the 8th respondent has not been obtained.

Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, in response to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, would

point out that the term of the 8th respondent as a Member of the Board of Management has already expired but by virtue of the Rules, he is

continuing under an arrangement till a new person is appointed. Secondly, he would submit that respondent No. 8 is not a Member of the Society as

per law. Thirdly, he would submit that there is no need to issue advertisement, as was done in the year 2013 because in the year 2013, there was a

direction given by the learned Single Judge and it was done as per the order of the Court. Shri Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel would also

submit that the petitioner does not have any locus since he himself being a retired employee cannot be termed as aggrieved party to invoke writ

jurisdiction and has no cause of action.

Prima facie, it would appear to us that even proceeding on the basis that the 8th respondent is to continue as a Member of the Board of

Management despite the expiry of the term, this itself may not make him a member of the Society, as for being a Member of Society, it appears to be

a matter governed under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, under which, the Society is registered. Being member of Board constituted

under Memorandum and being member of Society are two distinct positions.

As far as the case that the 8th respondent has not given his consent is concerned, it is true that it is entirely for the 8th respondent to take a decision

in the matter whether he should accept the appointment or not, but, for which, an appointment order should be issued to him. There is also a cloud,

which is sought to be cast on the locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition. We would think that at this stage the interest of justice would require

that we modify the interim order dated 20th June, 2018. Accordingly, we modify the order dated 20th June, 2018 by permitting that further steps can

be taken pursuant to the selection of the 8th respondent as the Chancellor. This is, however, would be subject to his not being a Member of the

Society, as defined under Section 15 read with Clause 24 of the Memorandum of Association. Secondly, it would be subject to condition that the 8th

respondent himself is willing to take up the assignment. Finally, we make it clear that even if the 8th respondent accepts the assignment and assumes

the charge, it will be subject to the result of the writ petition.

The petitioner to take steps to serve respondent No. 8 on the correct address within two days.

Three weeks’ time is granted to respondent No. 2 to file counter affidavit.