- (1.) Petitioner has sought issuance of writ of quo warranto declaring that respondent No. 3-Dr. Rajinderjit Kaur Pawar is not qualified to be appointed as Reader in the Law Department and further direction against the Guru Nanak Dev University to declare her appointment as null and void.
(2.) Petitioner a Lecturer in Law, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar has assailed the appointment of Dr. Rajinderjit Kaur Pawar on a number of grounds, namely :- (i) That respondent No. 3 has been selected in a mala fide manner. (ii) That Selection Committee was not properly constituted as provisions of the Calendar of the University specifically debar appointment of a person who has since retired. (iii) That even on merits petitioner is far more qualified than respondent No. 3. (iv) That the Selection Committee acted in haste in selecting and appointing respondent No. 3. (v) That even as per qualification prescribed, respondent No. 3, did not possess the requisite qualification.
(3.) Consequent to the notice of motion issued by this Court, respondents No. 1 and 2 have put in appearance and filed written statement controverting various material submissions made in the petition as well as have raised some preliminary submissions. By way of preliminary submissions it has been stated that Guru Nanak Dev University has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at this short ground. Secondly, the petitioner's main contention is that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to be appointed as Reader as she did not possess the necessary qualifications stipulated in the advertisement. However, such an objection could not be raised by the petitioner, as the matter is primarily within the domain of the Selection Committee. In the present case Selection Committee consisted of Shri R. S. Narula, retired Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Upindera Baxi, Vice Chancellor, Delhi University, Dr. K. K. Nigam, Professor, Delhi University, Dr. S. G. Singh, Professor, Department of Laws, besides others. A bare reading of the names constituting the Selection Committee itself brings out that the same consisted of eminent jurists and since the Selection Committee found respondent No. 3 possessing requisite qualification as well as worthy of the post the matter sought to be raised does not lie within the purview of the Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.;