JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ of quo warranto declaring that the fourth respondent (Dr. S. Sivakumar, hereafter referred to as "Sivakumar") is not entitled to hold his position as a Research Professor at the Indian Law Institute, New Delhi (hereafter the "ILI") as he, in the words of the petitioner, "...................fraudulently obtained the post by making false statements and fraudulent misrepresentation before the selection committee " The petitioner alleges that Sivakumar's appointment was contrary to statutory rules as he did not have the requisite qualifications in terms of the advertisement issued by the ILI inviting applications for the post of Research Professor and in terms of the Universities Grants Commission Regulations ("UGC Regulations") for appointment.
(2.)The brief facts are that in response to an advertisement issued in 2005, Sivakumar, and other candidates, applied to the post of Research Professor in the ILI. Sivakumar submitted his application on 03.10.2005. The advertised eligibility considerations were that the candidate had to be an eminent scholar with "good academic record" or have a doctoral degree in law or equivalent, "published work of high quality and master's degree in Law with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade" and "10 years post graduate teaching/research in universities/colleges and other institutions of higher education." There is no dispute that Sivakumar completed his law graduation in 1990 and subsequently completed his LLM from the University of Kerala, proceeding then to complete his Ph.D. in 1999. After processing the application, and conducting a selection process, Sivakumar was offered appointment to the post of Research Professor, and he took charge after the appointment order was issued on 20.02.2006. The present petitioner alleged for the first time that Sivakumar was not entitled to hold the post on 19.05.2010 by a representation to the ILI. Later, on 01.02.2012, he preferred a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which was later withdrawn on 24.02.2012, though the Supreme Court granted liberty to him to approach this Court. Consequently, he preferred the present writ petition.
(3.)It is contended that Sivakumar had made a fraudulent statement while applying for the post that he had sufficient experience in post graduate teaching, (one of the essential advertised qualifications) though in reality, alleges the petitioner, the documents issued by the institutions in which Sivakumar claims to have taught at earlier clearly demonstrate that he did not have the requisite experience as stated by him.The Petitioner argues that although in Annexure I to his application, Sivakumar had stated that he had postgraduate teaching experience of 11 years and 1 month (8 years and 9 months in Kerala Law Academy College, Thiruvananthapuram, 5 months in National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, and 1 year and 11 months in Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur), he had no such teaching experience and falsely represented before the selection committee. For this, the petitioner relies on responses received from the three institutions under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which have been brought on record. As regards the National University of Juridical Sciences, the petitioner argues that Sivakumar did not teach any post-graduate course in that University, and in fact, committed a breach of contract; as regards the Hidayatullah National Law university, Raipur, the petitioner argues that Sivakumar was working at the university only on an ad hoc basis; as regards the Kerala Law Academy, the petitioner argues that Sivakumar did not teach any postgraduate course, and the term of his employment was 6 years, 11 months and 19 days, as against his claim of 8 years and 9 months postgraduate teaching experience. In view of these facts, the petitioner argues that various fraudulent representations were made, which misled the selection committee into confirming his appointment as a Research Professor. This, at any rate, justifies disciplinary proceedings and removal from the post occupied by Sivakumar.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.