Petition For Same Relief Not Maintainable: Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Registrar Of Kazi Nazrul University

Further, the Petitioner had filed another Writ Petition previously challenging the appointment on the same grounds. Therefore, the High Court held that the principles of Res Judicata under Section 11, CPC would apply and the Petition was dismissed.

A Two Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta said that “in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but represents the public at large as long as the litigation is bonafide, the judgment in a previous public interest litigation would be a judgment in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the court and raising any connected issue or an issue which had been raised should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of public interest litigation.”

The Court further added that “we find that there is no dilution of the essential qualifications prescribed by the AICTE or by the UGC. As a matter of fact the Bankura University has also adopted the same qualification in its advertisement dated 06.02.2023 and consequently the decisions relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the AICTE Regulations has the force of a statute, which is a well settled principle, cannot in any manner assist the case of the writ petitioner as we have found that there is no inconsistency between the advertisement issued by the respondent University with that of the AICTE/Regulations.”

Advocate Arunangshu Chakraborty appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate General S.N. Mookherjee and Senior Advocate Jaydip Kar appeared for the Respondent.

In the case, the Petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No.6 as Registrar of Kazi Nazrul University. The Petitioner submitted that the advertisement released by the University was not in accordance with the norms set by the UGC. Further, it was challenged that the Respondent did not have educational qualifications required to be eligible for the appointment.

The Respondent submitted that the criteria set has been in accordance with the UGC and that the Registrar has the requirement educational qualifications in the same pay scale as required. The Petitioner had previous filed another Writ Petition praying to the Court to issue writ of quo warranto to call upon the 6th respondent to show cause as to why he should not be ousted from the public office on declaring his appointment as Registrar illegal.

The Court after a careful examination of facts and circumstances said that “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. It could be seen that the 6th respondent would fulfill the criteria as stipulated in the notification of the AICTE Regulations dated 22.01.2010. In any event, the present public interest writ petition cannot in any manner seeks to question the appointment of the 6th respondent as an Lecturer or the Assistant Professor as the writ petition concerns the appointment of the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the respondent University.”

The Court further added that “the substantial part of the arguments as advanced by the learned Advocates for the petitioner is identical and similar to the contention which was raised in the earlier writ petition. The question would be as to whether by way of second public interest litigation, the self-same issues can be re-agitated. Admittedly, the earlier writ petition was dismissed on merits.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Shanta Paul v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Click here to read/download judgment