Dinesh Madan vs Rajasthan Ayurved University

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been appointed else where, he does not want to secure the job in the respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University as Stenographer (Hindi) and, therefore, does not want to press this writ petition and prays for its withdrawal.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit today as directed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 16.07.2014, in the Registry and the same be taken on record.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur, Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, however, submitted that such withdrawal of the writ petition cannot be permitted since the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he was appointed at the other place i.e. in the Bikaner University as Stenographer (Hindi) in the year 2012 itself, but he has wrongly stated that he did not inform the said fact to his counsel at Jodhpur. He further submitted that the appointment order in favour of petitioner was issued on 27.04.2011 by the respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur, giving him a period of one month for joining the duties, but he did not join, for the reasons best known to him.

Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that in the absence of any information in that regard from the petitioner to him, a detailed order was passed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 08.07.2014 passing the strictures against the Registrar of the respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur for not issuing the appointment order in favour of petitioner though he had secured highest marks in the written test and was at Serial No. 1 in the select list. He submitted that had he known about the prior appointment of the petitioner in Bikaner University in the year 2012 just after filing the present writ petition in the year 2011, he would have certainly withdrawn the writ petition on that day itself; and would not have pressed for securing the appointment order from the respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University at Jodhpur.

Learned counsel for the respondent-University, Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat, also submitted that again upon the directions given by a coordinate bench of this Court on 08.07.2014, the University again issued a fresh appointment order on 14.07.2014, however, the petitioner still did not come to join take his appointment order and join the duties and the Registrar of the University was also directed to remain present in the Court on 15.07.2014, and accordingly, the Registrar remained present in the Court on 15.07.2014. He, therefore, submitted that for all the loss and prejudice caused to the respondent-University, at least either suitable action may be taken against the petitioner for the gross abuse of process of this Court and insisting upon securing the appointment order from the respondent-University at Jodhpur, or in the alternative, if the withdrawal of the writ petition is permitted, suitable costs may be imposed on the petitioner for misleading the Court and securing the court order dated 08.07.2014 in complete ignorance of the fact that he had already been gainfully employed and appointed in Bikaner University way back in the year 2012 itself and he did not communicate this fact to either respondent-University, his counsel at Jodhpur or to this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Saruparia, however, submitted that though the petitioner was present in the Court today in the first half but he has now left for Bikaner again. He, however, prayed for a lenient view to be taken in the matter.

Normally, though the Court permits the withdrawal of the writ petition but when the same is seriously objected to by the learned counsel for the respondent/s in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is constrained to take a strict view of the matter and, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have informed the fact of his alternative employment secured by him on the same post of Stenographer (Hindi) in the Bikaner University other than the present respondent-Rajasthan Ayurved University, at Jodhpur way back in the year 2012 itself. Since the present writ petition was filed in the year 2011 and in the absence of such communication given by him to his own counsel or to the respondent University or to this Court, in any manner, the coordinate bench was led to believe that the petitioner is still in the wait of the appointment as per his merit in the selection process held for the post of Stenographer (Hindi) in the respondent-University at Jodhpur and accordingly passed the serious order against the respondent University and requiring the personal presence of the Registrar of the said University, which he complied by remaining present and by issuing the fresh appointment order again on 14.07.2014 though such appointment order was already issued on 27.04.2011, however, the petitioner did not join his duties in the respondent University at that point of time itself. This was an abuse of process of this Court by the petitioner.

Therefore, while permitting the withdrawal of the present writ petition, the petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Legal Aid Centre at this Court within a period of fifteen days from today and the compliance report of the same be furnished to this Court within three weeks from today.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid and deposited by the petitioner. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.