The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, and imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner, LiveLaw reported on Wednesday, November 4. 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 and that the petitioner had suppressed mandatory disclosures regarding pending and decided criminal, civil and revenue proceedings against him.

Source: LiveLaw

The petition, Vijay Singh Sheron v. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1153/2024), challenged the constitutional validity of Section 11(1) of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012, which empowers the Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor, along with the advertisement dated December 12, 2023 for the post, CourtBook reported. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at the university, argued that the provision prescribed no eligibility criteria, was violative of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and that Vice-Chancellor Dr Alok Tripathi did not possess the requisite qualifications.

Source: CourtBook

"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," the court said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

The court noted that Dr Tripathi was first appointed Vice-Chancellor in 2020 and the petitioner raised no grievance about the appointment during 2020-2023; the PIL was filed in 2024, after the respondent was re-appointed and after criminal complaints and disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner during the Vice-Chancellor's first term, CourtBook reported. The bench also held that the petitioner had concealed the particulars of pending and decided cases against him, contrary to the mandatory disclosure requirement under Rule 385-F of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952.

Holding that the petitioner's conduct disentitled him from raising the dispute in the shape of a PIL, the court said it was inappropriate to examine the constitutional validity of the provision in this case and left that question open for consideration in an appropriate case. The Rs 1 lakh costs are to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.