ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) PETITIONER is an Islander. He claimed to be a nature activist as it appears from the pleading. He came to know, Medical Research Centre, Dollygunj was responsible for cutting trees without necessary permission from the authority. He applied to the said authority under RTI Act as to whether they obtained necessary permission for the same. He also inquired from Divisional Forest Officer, who informed him, no such permission was obtained. In course of enquiry he came to know, the Director himself did not have the requisite qualification for the post. Hence he applied for Writ of Quo warranto. According to him, the post would require 15 years research experience that the Director had lacked.
(2.) THE authority contested the proceeding by filing several affidavits. The authority would contend, the petition was filed for oblique purpose. It was filed at the behest of someone who was trying to put the Institute and its Director in embracement. We heard the parties at length on the above-mentioned dates. Mrs. Anjili Nag learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend, the petitioner was a citizen of India. He was entitled to challenge the appointment if it was illegally given to the Director. Once the Director lacked the eligible qualification and /or the experience such illegality could be challenged by any one and as locus could not be challenged. According to her, the post of Director being a public post, the appointment in the same was open to judicial scrutiny at instance of any citizen of the country. She would refer to the decision in the case of Sheshrao Jangluji Bagde-Vs- Vhiayya, Son of Govind Rao karele and others reported in 1991 supplementary volume of Supreme Court cases page 367 in this regard. She also cited two more Apex court decisions in the case of N Kannadasan- Vs- Ajoy Khose reported in 2009 volume 7 Supreme Court cases page 1 and Centre for PIL and Another ­Vs- Union of India and Another reported in 2011 volume 4 SC cases 2011 to support her contentions. She also contended, on enquiry the petitioner came to know, seven more persons had requisite qualification and experience, they were not considered for the post. She referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the authority to show, even on the basis of data given by the candidate himself he could not have experience more than fourteen years. The authority however tried to justify their action by taking into account the period when the Director was not even a Post Graduate.
(3.) PER contra, Mr V.K. Rao learned counsel appearing for the Union of India as well as the Institute contended, the petition was filed for oblique purpose. The cutting of trees did not have nexus with the appointment of Director. The incident happened in the year 2010 whereas the Director was appointed in 2006 and the petition was filed in 2012. According to Mr. Rao, the source of information was not disclosed. However the petitioner relied on three documents, one with regard to cutting of trees that too, obtained in December 2010. The next document with regard to cutting of trees was also dated December 2010. The third document relied on with regard to appointment, was dated January 30, 2012 addressed to one Dr. Zubair of district Bikaner, Rajasthan. The petitioner did not explain the nexus between him and Zubair. Mr Rao further contended that the challenge to the appointment of Director was made after the Institute imposed the punishment against one of its staff one Hamza who was possibly behind this litigation. In this regard, he referred to the supplementary affidavits to show, Hamza was imposed a punishment for his misbehaviour and disobedience and refusal to obey the order of superior. He was found guilty of the charges and imposed the penalty of reduction of pay for five years. His appeal was dismissed on May 29, 2012. One Vidya Krishna applied under RTI Act on September 30, 2011 enquiring about qualification and experience of the Director. Trying to establish nexus between petitioner, Vidya Krishna, Zubair and Hamaza. Mr Rao would try to demonstrate the oblique motive that would be apparent from the face of the record. He contended, the petitioner relied on the document pertaining to the Director's appointment that was dated post punishment period of Hamza. In support of his contention, Mr. Rao would cite two Apex court decisions one in the case of B.Srinivasa Reddy -Vs- Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association reported in 2006 volume 11 Supreme Court cases page 731 and the other one reported in 2011 Volume 5 Supreme Court cases page 464 in the case of Bholanath Mukherjee ­Vs- R.K. Mission Vivekananda Centenary College.;