AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J
Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking mainly the following relief(s):-
“1. On the basis of prima facie case made out in this petition, an independent inquiry may be directed. That an inquiry may be ordered to be conducted by State Department (vigilance), or preferably by a committee constituted by this Hon’ble Court, to investigate;
i) As to how important posts in the institute are being advertised exclusively for spouses of the IIT faculty and they are being appointed and paid salary from public funds.
ii) Discrepancies in award of contract, which has been issued without any advertisement or competition, to a private firm, in violation of mandatory rules.
iii) Illegal lease of management of the Campus School to a private body instead to the Govt. run school, and spouses of the faculty have been appointed to run the said school; investigation is required to be directed to evaluate the loss to government exchequer, and fixing responsibility for violation of the conditions that only a ‘Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan’, an autonomous body under MHRD, Government of India can run schools in IIT Campus.
iv) Irregularities and illegalities in recruitment & selection process; Selections of Group B & C posts are being filled up in contravention to the law and against the guidelines of the State, by using interviews to enhance merit and selection of internal candidates’ time and again.
v) Misuse of tax payer/public money by the administration.
issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to not conduct interviews for appointments in lower grades i.e. B and C grade in accordance with the GOI’s MHRD notification issued in 2015 (annexed vide Annexure P-2) regarding discontinuation of Interview for such posts.
Direction to advertise in newspapers or on internet, or on the ‘Central Public Procurement Portal’, notices inviting tender for all works, for which amount is more than Rs.25 Lakhs as per mandatory condition of Stores and Purchase Rules, Clause No.5.1(iii), that the copy of the rules is annexed vide Annexure P-5/3.
Direction to ‘IIT Council’ that Recruitment of faculty or administrative staff is scrutinized regularly to prevent corrupt practices in these appointments.
Directions to ‘IIT Mandi’ to ensure that the administrative duties are not discharged by the faculty who do not have requisite experience or domain expertise.”
Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Shiwam Sharma, learned Advocate, for respondents No.3, 5 and 6, has raised preliminary objection that the petitioners have earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.102 of 2019, which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars vide order dated 1.4.2019. However, the said fact has not been disclosed in Paragraph-12 of the petition.
Paragrah 12 of the petition reads as under:-
“That the petitioners have not approached this Hon’ble Court or any other court including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the same and similar grounds for the grant of same or similar reliefs, except by way of present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court.”
Admittedly, petitioners had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No.102 of 2019, seeking similar relief and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition with better particulars.
Order passed in CWP No.102 of 2019, dated 1.4.2019 reads as under:-
“As prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
It was incumbent upon the petitioners to have stated in Paragraph-12 of the writ petition that they had earlier filed a writ petition and the same was got dismissed as withdraw with liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars. Since, petitioners have made incorrect narration of fact in Paragraph - 12 of the Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court, while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out.
Dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.