- (1.) Heard Sri K. Raghupathi, the petitioner in person, Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers to issue :- "a) A Writ, order, declaration or direction in the name or form and nature of Quo warranto to the Respondent to show cause on what rights he is holding an independent substantive public statutory office of Registrar of State. b) A writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant interim relief to the effect that the Respondent be restrained not to participate in any decision or policy making processes concerning any of the academic and research activities and administration of the University until the pendency of this present writ petition, c) Any other writ, order, declaration or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice; and d) Award cost of the petition to petitioner."
(3.) Following order was passed in this writ petition by another coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.3.2019 :- "The case of the petitioner is that though as per Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002, as amended, the Registrar shall be appointed by the Board of Management of the University in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, but by the order impugned dated 24.8.2018, the respondent, Shri Bachchu Singh has been appointed as Registrar of the University by the State Government. The appointment of respondent, Shri Bachchu Singh as per the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2002 as amended and as such he is a usurper of the office concerned. It is also brought to our notice that by filing Writ-A No.12027 of 2018, the petitioner assailed the validity of appointments made to the post of Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Finance Officer, but that petition for writ was dismissed on 07.12.2018. In the petition aforesaid, the appointment of Vice Chancellor was not interfered by the Court as the same was in officiating capacity. With regard to appointments to the post of Registrar and Finance Officer, the court held that the petitioner failed to show as to how the appointments on the posts aforesaid are illegal. The Court also observed that nothing has been disclosed in the petition for writ about deficiencies in the appointments concerned. Reference of the case aforesaid is also given in the petition for writ. ;