1 CGHC010146992023 2026:CGHC:38789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 45 of 2023 1 - Dr. Rakesh Gupta S/o Shri Sardari Lal Gupta Aged About 61 Years President Of Indian Medical Association Of Raipur And Chhattisgarh Hospital Board And Association Of Health Providers Of India (Chhattisgarh Chapter) Alumni Of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, R/o Opp. Pandri Bus Stand, Rc Towers First Floor, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prof. Laxmi Shankar Nigam S/o Late Shri Guru Prasad Nigam Aged About 73 Years Former (Founding) Vice-Chancellor Of Shri Shankaracharya Professional University Bhilai, Retired Professor And Former Head Of Ancient Indian History, Culture And Archaeology At Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur Chhattisgarh. R/o Mukherjee Compound Fauwara Chowk, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher- Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The University Grants Commission, Through Its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jaffar Marg, New Delhi. 3 - The Chancellor Of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raj Bhavan, Civil Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Through Its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Prof. (Dr.) Sachchidanand Shukla Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Ayodhya- 224001, U.P. (Appointed As Vice Chancellor Of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.02 18:22:38 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Shri Sidahrth Dubey, Advocate. For State : Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General. For Respondent 2 : Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. For Respondent 3 to 5 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 02.09.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present PIL has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of quo warranto quashing the impugned appointment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure- "P/1A) and as sequitur declare the appointment of the respondent no.5 as Vice- Chancellor in the respondent University void ab intio and bad in law. 10.2 That this the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the recommendation of the search committee dated 13.02.2023 i.e. (Annexure- "P/1B") and as sequitur quash the impugned appointment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure- "P/1A"). 10.3 That this the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing/setting aside the notification constituting the search committee dated 13.12.2022 i.e. (Annexure- "P/1C") and as sequitur quash/set aside the recommendation of the search committee dated 13.02.2023 i.e. (Annexure- "P/1B") and the impugned appointment order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure- "P/1A"). 10.4 As a sequitur to relief(s) 10.1 to 10.3 this the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned answering respondent(s) to constitute a fresh search committee which should make fresh recommendation(s) in accordance with law. 10.5 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ's / order's/direction's /relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 By way of this Public Interest Litigation the petitioners are challenging the appointment order dated 13.04.2023 issued in favour of respondent 3 No.5 primarily on the ground that the respondent No.5 fails to meet the minimum eligibility criteria of 10 years of experience as a Professor for the post of Vice-Chancellor as per regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. The constitution and recommendation of search committee dated 13.02.2023 recommending the private respondent have also been challenged on the ground that the member of the search committee is also a member of respondent university which is not permissible under the aforesaid regulation 7.3 and Section 13 sub-section (4) of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalayaa Adhiniyam, 1973. Thus, prayed for quashing of appointment order issued in favour of respondent No.5. 3 The counsel for respondents raise preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners have basically challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Vice Chancellor on account of his not fulfilling the criteria prescribed by the University Grands Commission (Regulations for Appointment to the Post of Vice-Chancellor). The petition does not disclose any genuine harm or injury to the public at large. The relief sought pertains to an individual appointment process and do not involve any matter of broad public concern warranting judicial interference in exercise of PIL jurisdiction. The petitioners have no locus to file the present PIL. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with writ petition. 4 5 Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record, this Court has considered the maintainability of the present Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioners challenging appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Vice-Chancellor. It is well settled that a petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation must satisfy the basic requirements of bona fide public interest, credible foundation of facts, and sufficient locus on the part of the petitioner to espouse the cause before the Court. The petitioners have not demonstrated any legally sustainable basis enabling them to maintain the present petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. It is relevant to mention that it is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioners before entertaining a PIL. 6 It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a 5 source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 7 A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Gurmet Singh Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2021 (5) ADJ 409, noticing the decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and other judgments of the Apex Court on the issue, has dismissed the public interest litigation. 8 The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 9 The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under: “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the 6 disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters—government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, wherein appointment of the appellant as Auction Recorder was challenged, held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information 7 being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. 11 The petitioners have no locus standi to file the present PIL for the reliefs claimed therein as it appears that for oblique motive, the present PIL has been filed by the petitioners challenging appointment of respondent No.5 on the post of Vice-Chancellor. In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy for redressal of their grievance raised in this petition. 12 Accordingly, the present PIL is dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the present proceedings, reserving right in their favour to take recourse of law available to them under the provisions of law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder