- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. L. P Naithani, Advocate General, with Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. T. S. Phartiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. P Joshi, Advocate for respond ent Nos. 3 and 4. They are heard on admission.
(2.) PETITIONER Santosh Kumar has filed this writ petition styled as 'public Interest Litigation' for the following re liefs : "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus com manding to quash the order of Hon'ble Chancellor dated 22-03-2007 and issue order for getting enquired the entire issues by high level independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation and further direct the said agency to submit its report be fore this Hon'ble Court within stipulated period and thereafter, accordingly pass an appropriate order or direction into the mat ter. ii. Pass any other and further or ders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. " From the above-quoted relief sough in the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 22-03-2007 passed by respondent No. 2 Chancellor, H. N. B. Garhwal University, whereby the peti tioner's representation has been rejected. The petitioner is an employee of H. N. B. Garhwal University and has filed several writ petitions against the Chan cellor, Vice Chancellor of the University and the University styled as 'public In terest Litigation' in the past.
(3.) THE petitioner is alleging commis sion of irregularities by the University in the appointment of 92 persons, who were appointed as the land, belonging to them or their family members, was acquired / taken by the University for its expansion. During the course of hearing, when Mr. T. S. Phartiyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to demonstrate from the pleadings in the writ petition as to who are those persons whose appointment is illegal or irregular, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the details of those persons have not been disclosed in the writ petition.;