JUDGMENT
M.H.S. Ansari, J.
1. Instant application is moved as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and has been assigned to this Bench by the order of His Lordship the Chief Justice dated March 25, 2004.
2. Reliefs sought for in the instant writ application are in the nature of mandamus directing the Vidyasagar University to complete the enquiry initiated by Executive Council against private respondent No. 7. Also a writ in the nature of quo warranto is prayed for on the ground that the appointment of private respondent as Reader in the Department of Anthropology of Vidyasagar University in 1990 was irregular.
3. Petitioner also seeks a direction upon the University of Calcutta to set aside the appointment of the private respondent as a Reader in the Department of Anthropology.
4. Briefly stated, the pleadings in support of the reliefs are that private respondent No. 7 did not apply for the post of Reader in the Calcutta University through proper channel. The Head of the Department of Vidyasagar University is the competent authority to receive application but did not receive the application from the private respondent No. 7. It is further pleaded that the Vice-Chancellor forwarded her application to the Calcutta University in violation of Section 23 of the Vidyasagar University First Ordinances, 1985. It is further pleaded that the Vidyasagar University is contemplating to release the private respondent to join as a Reader in the Department of Anthropology in the Calcutta University and it should be restrained from doing so when the respondent is facing charges of misconduct. Reliance has been placed upon the show cause notice issued to private respondent being Annexures P-7 and P-10, whereby the Executive Council directed to issue a show cause notice as to why disciplinary action should not be taken by the Vidyasagar University against the private respondent.
5. Ms. Debjani Sengputa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vidyasagar University submitted upon instructions of her clients that in the absence of the Head of the Department the application of private respondent was routed through proper channel that is through the Dean of Faculty and was forwarded by the Vice-Chancellor. As regards the disciplinary proceedings initiated by show cause notice, it was submitted by Ms. Sengupta that reply to show cause notice was received from the private respondent on November 20, 2002 and the Executive Council of the University considered the same and have taken a decision in that regard on July 8, 2003. Petitioner is obviously unaware of the same. Likewise, petitioner is also unaware that release order has been issued by the University on March 10, 2004.
6. In view of the oral submissions made by Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Counsel on behalf of the Vidyasagar University the reliefs claimed against Vidyasagar University are practically rendered infructuous, subsequent actions of the Vidyasagar University not having been questioned. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with the judgment of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, .
7. Further, in respect of departmental proceedings it is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. [See Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India and Ors., ].
8. As regards the reliefs claimed against the Calcutta University, Mr. Dipankar Dutta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Calcutta University submitted upon instructions of his clients that the application of the private respondent was received through proper authority namely the Vice-Chancellor of the Vidyasagar University. The Selection Committee duly constituted by the Calcutta University considered the applications received for the posts and recommended amongst others the name of private respondent and appointment letter was issued to the private respondent based upon her selection. It is further submitted by Mr. Dutta that respondent was not allowed to join duty unless proper release order is issued by the previous employer (Vidyasagar University).
9. It is contended by Mr. Dibyendu Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of private respondent as Reader in the Department of Anthropology of Calcutta University is illegal being in violation of Rules and Regulations of University Grants Commission, 1991. With regard to the qualifications with respect to eligibility specified in the advertisement dated April 26, 2002, whereby applications were invited from the candidates having the prescribed eligibility, it is pleaded that imposing of condition of teaching experience of 5 years in the post-graduate level as essential condition by Calcutta University in its aforesaid advertisement is in violation of U.G.C. Regulations. The further grievance is that in its aforesaid advertisement Calcutta University has reserved to itself the right to determine the number of candidates to be called for interview.
10. As regards insisting on 5 years teaching experience in post-graduate level is concerned it is contended that University has thereby debarred the renowned Indian Scholars working in internationally reputed institutions in India and abroad. No such challenge was made to the qualifications prescribed when advertised nor any person otherwise eligible has made a complaint on that ground of being denied participation in the selection process. Likewise, there is no complaint from any eligible candidate that despite being eligible and having applied for the post in question, Calcutta University did not call such person for interview by applying the rule of limiting the number of candidates to be called for interview. Petitioner has not pleaded that any of the Rules, Regulations or Ordinances of the Calcutta University have been violated in making the appointment nor have any such Rules, Regulations or Ordinances been placed before this Court. It is not the petitioner’s case that the appointment made by the Calcutta University is in contravention of any of its statutory or binding rule or ordinance governing such appointment. Nor is it the petitioner’s case that any of the Rules, Regulations or Ordinances of the Calcutta University is void nor even that the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are contrary to any such statutory rules of the Calcutta University.
11. The application is thus lacking in material particulars. That apart, petitioner is not espousing the cause of that class of persons who are not in a position themselves to protect their own interest or belong to such class who are either ignorant or economically disadvantaged and cannot seek legal redress.
12. The decisions cited viz., (1) Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., , (2) Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Ors., and (3) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, reported in 1981 (Supp.) SCC 87, are besides the point. None of these decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner deal with the questions arising in the present case or whereby PIL was entertained in a matter as the one on hand. In the matter of selection and appointment, a person who is qualified and eligible has locus standi and not one who has no eligibility can question the selection.
13. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is not inclined to relax the rule of locus standi. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.
14. As no affidavits-in-opposition have been called for the allegations in the application are deemed not admitted.
15. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment and order be furnished to appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis.
Soumitra Pal, J.
16. I agree.