IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a))
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO………… OF 2011
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India arising out of
the final judgement and order dated 02.11.2011 passed by
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 7188
Before the High
Court
Petitioner
Before this
Court
Petitioner
Arvind kumar Mishra
Gurhatta Hamam Path
Patna City, Bihar-800008
1. Union of India, Ministry
of Human Resource
Development
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi - 110001
Through Its Secretary
2. University Grant
Commission
1, Bahadurshah
ZafarMarg
New Delhi - 110002
Through Secretary
Respondent No. 1
Respondent
No. 1
Respondent No. 2
Respondent
No. 2
3. Shri Lal Bahadur
Shastri Rashtriya-
Sanskrit Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University)
Qutub Institutional
Area New Delhi- 110
016 Through its Vice
Chancellor
4. Sh. B K Mohapatra
Registrar Shri Lal
Bahadur Shastri
Rashtriya-Sanskrit
Vidyapeeth, (Deemed
University) Qutub
Institutional Area
New Delhi - l l0016
Respondent No. 3
Respondent
No. 3
Respondent No. 4
Respondent
No. 4
All contesting respondents
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
and his companion Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
The Special Leave Petition of the petitioners above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioners above-named respectfully submit the
petition seeking special leave to appeal against the final
judgment and order dated 02.11.2011, passed by High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
7188 of 2011, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed
the said writ petition filed by the petitioner and has
allowed the respondent No. 4 to continue as Registrar of
Respondent No. 3 beyond a period of 5 years.
Question of Law:
The following question of law arises for considerations
by this Hon’ble Court:
Whether
considering the fact that as per Government of
India notifications and UGC rules, post of registrar
in respondent no. 3 is a term post and is subject to
renewal after completion of 5 years, which has been
made permanent by amending the original bye laws
of the respondent no.3?
Whether the court below was justified in holding
that the appointment of respondent no. 4 was valid
and legal and he has been allowed to continue as
registrar of respondent no. 3 till his superannuation,
i.e. 62 years?
the
Court
below
was
justified
in
not
DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):
The petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave
to appeal has been filed by them against the impugned
judgment and order
DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:
The annexures filed along with the Special Leave Petition
are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed
part of the record of the case in the High Court against
whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this
petition.
GROUNDS:
Leave to Appeal is sought for on the following grounds:
A. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate
the fact that Respondent No. 3 has been constituted
furtherance
to
the
constitutional
mandate
of
development of culture and Sanskrit Language and it
is a duty casted upon the institution to discharge its
functions in accordance with the rules- and regulations
framed there under for regulating the appointments of
the faculties and also in conducting the affairs of the
Respondent No. 3 and violation of any of the provisions
of the Memorandum of Association and Bye Laws will
prejudice the interest of the institution and the ancient
language.
B. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact
that the provisions of amended Bye Laws governing
the appointment of Registrar (Respondent No. 4) in
Respondent No. 3 is in violation of the Notification dated
02.11.1988, by which the appointment already existing
in the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to continue
till his superannuation to facilitate the existing registrar
as permanent Registrar in the Respondent No. 3.
C. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact
that making post of the registrar as a permanent post
in the Respondent No. 3 is in violation of the notification
dated 02.11.1988 and the guidelines and notifications
of UGC, which clearly mandate that the post of registrar
is a tenure post in the Respondent No. 3 and making it
permanent has made the person absolute in power and
rights to act on his whims and fancies.
D.
Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that the Respondent No. 3 is governed by the Rules
and Regulations framed by the 1st and 2nd respondent
herein.
provides rules and regulations for the efficient conduct
of the affairs, governs the Respondent No. 3 and the
Respondent No. 3 is mandated to fully adhere to the
rules and regulations and the guidelines issued by the
1st and 2nd Respondent from time to time.
E. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the fact
that converting the post of registrar in the Respondent
No. 3, from tenure post to the permanent post, only
to accommodate the present registrar, is against
the rules laid down by the respondent No. 1 and
respondent no. 2 and continuation of respondent no.
4 as a permanent registrar in the Respondent No. 3 is
harming the interests of the Respondent No. 3 and the
language and it is also the violation of the rules and
The
memorandum
of
association,
which
regulations of the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3.
F.Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that the Respondent No. 3 being a deemed to be
University under Sec. 3 of the UGC Act and is bound
by the Act and the Rules of UGC. Vide letter dated 26th
May, 2005 the respondent No. 3 has observed that the
Respondent No. 3
permanent which is against the rules and notifications
laid by the UGC and Government of India.
G.
Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that the post of registrar in the Respondent No. 3
is a tenure post has been converted by the Respondent
No. 3 in the permanent post with ulterior motives to
benefit a single person who is harming interests of the
Respondent No. 3 and Sanskrit Language.
H. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that The Respondent No. 3 has not recruited any
Finance Officer etc., after 27.06.2005 and the Finance
officer power has been given to the present Registrar
and he is acting as Finance officer from 27.06.2005.
I. Because the Ld. Court below failed to appreciate the
fact that the post of the registrar in the Respondent
No. 3 is a tenure of five years has been converted by
the Respondent No. 3 in the permanent post only for
the present registrar is against the rules laid by the
Respondent No. 3 and the bye laws governing the
method of recruitment rules 2008.
is making the post of registrar as
GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
No interim relief has been sought for in the petition.
MAIN PRAYER:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to;
a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final
judgment and order dated 02.11.2011, passed by
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 7188 of 2011, whereby the Hon’ble
High Court dismissed the said writ petition filed
by the petitioner and has allowed the respondent
No. 4 to continue as Registrar of Respondent No.
3 beyond a period of 5 years.
b) pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble
Court
facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice.
may graciously be pleased to pass in the
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
No interim relief has been sought for.
DRAWN ON:
FILED BY
DRAWN BY:
VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
PLACE: NEW DELHI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.
OF 2012
Ramanathan Shankara Subrahmania Sharma.
….…Petitioner
Versus
First Blue Home Finance Ltd
.......Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
I, S. Ramanathan, S/o, Late Shankara Iyer, aged about 66 years, residing
at SF3, Elegant Shine,
Bengaluru 560 050, India, presently at New Delhi, do herby solemnly affirm
and state as under :-
#12/72, 4th Cross, SBM Colony, BSK – I stage,
That I am Authorised Representative of the petitioner in the
abovecaptioned matter and am competent to swear the present
affidavit which has been drafted by counsel under my instructions.
That I have gone through a copy of the List of Dates from pages B
to ___ and I state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief.
That I have gone through a copy of the special leave petition from para
1 to ......... from pages ___ to ___ and I state that the contents thereof
are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
That I have gone through a copy of the interlocutory applications and I
state that the contents thereof are true and correct to my knowledge.
Annexures P-1 to ____ attached are true and correct copies of their
respective originals.
DEPONENT
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of my above
affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Verified at New Delhi on this the ___ day of April, 2012.
DEPONENT
