[2026:RJ-JP:6532-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 35/2026 Professor Mahipal Sihag Son Of Shri Ramjas Sihag, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of R-8 Rajasthan University Campus Jaipur, 302004. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Chancellor, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur And The Governor Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Raj Bhawan, Civil Lines, Jaipur-302006. 2. The University Grants Commission, Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002. 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur-302005. 4. The University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302004. 5. Professor Alpana Kateja, Vice Chancellor (Now Kulguru), University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, 302004. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Dr. Savita Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad,Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanay Goyal Mr. AK Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadhich Mr. Sarthak Rastogi with Mr. Tushar Kumar Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 11/02/2026 1. Heard. [2026:RJ-JP:6532-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-35/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly passed an order imposing the cost of Rs. 5 lacs to be deposited by the appellant to substantiate the bona fide when the writ petition was filed in the nature of quo warranto. The appellant is a professor in the subject of Geography in the same university where the respondent No.5 has been appointed as Vice Chancellor. 3. We are of the firm view that a professor of the university has a right to challenge the appointment of any other person of the university on the post of Vice Chancellor and for that purpose, a quo warranto petition can be filed by such person and his bona fide cannot be said to be in question. As regards the other issues raised by the respected parties, they can all be examined by the learned Single Judge. 4. Leaving it open for the appellant as well as for the respondents to raise all other just objections in law, we close this appeal. Let the writ petition be decided on merits by the learned Single Judge having the concerned roster. 5. The effect and operation of the judgments and order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to imposition of cost shall remain stayed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/117