WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Date of Hearing : 29.11.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) NO. 12533 OF 2019

(In the matter of Public Interest Litigation):
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN & Anr.

... PETITIONERS
VERSUS

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY, DELHI & Ors.
..RESPONDENTS
INDEX
SI.NO.

PARTICULARS

1.

Urgent Application

2.

Notice of Motion

3.

Memo of Parties

4.

Synopsis and List of Dates & Events

5.

Writ Petition (Civil) by way of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226
of the Constitution of India along with
supporting affidavit.

6.

ANNEXURE P-1 (Colly)
A Copy of Times of India, Newspaper,
Indore, MP Dated 17.10.2011, reporting
removal of Prof G.S Bajpai from service
in

September/October 2011 by NLIU

Bhopal, and The Order of Hon’ble
Madhya Pradesh High Court: WP-180422010- Prof (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Vs National
Law Institute University, Bhopal dated
12.01.2016, dismissing his Petition.
7.

ANNEXURE P- 2 (Colly)
True copy of the advertisement 2013

PAGE No.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

inviting applications for the post of
Professor of Law, NLU Delhi and the
True copy of relevant pages of UGC
Regulations, 2010 on qualification for the
post of Professor of Law; and the
academic qualification of Respondent No
2.
8.

ANNEXURE P - 3 (Colly)
Copy of Section 21 of NLUD Act 2007
and Resolution of Executive Council,
NLUD

dated

26.08.2014

appointing

Respondent No. 2 as the Registrar of
NLUD.
9.

ANNEXURE P - 4 (Colly)
Copy of List of LLM Students in 2017-18
and List of Gold Medal Candidates.

10.

ANNEXURE P - 5
Advertisement for the post of One
Research

Associate

and

One

Field

Investigator.
11.

ANNEXURE P - 6
Decision of Appointment of Respondent
No. 4 as Research Associate among others
dated 17.09.2019

12.

ANNEXURE P- 7
A copy of the Selection Committee for the
appointment of Respondent No.5 dated
05.12.2018

13.

ANNEXURE P- 8 (Colly)
Copy of Notification

for admission

process to Ph.D in Law 2019, Results of
Ph.D. Entrance Exam 2019 Dated –
22.06.2019 and Composition of Research
Committee for the admission to Ph.D.
Course dated 29.07.2019

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

14.

ANNEXURE P- 9 (Colly)
Copy of Representations on abuse of
powers by Respondent No. 2 to the Chief
Justice of India, Chief Justice High Court
of Delhi (Chancellor, NLUD), Vice
Chancellor NLU Delhi- Respondent No 3,
dated

22.07.2019,

29.06.2019

and

22.07.2019 respectively.
15.

ANNEXURE P - 10 (Colly)
A Copy of the LLM Time-Table, 2019
Batch, showing the Appointment Of
Respondent No. 4 as a Visiting/Guest
Faculty at NLU Delhi and Copy Of
Composition

of

LLM

Governing

Committee/ Centre for Post Graduate
Legal Studies (CPGLS) 2017 and 2019.
16.

Application on Behalf of Petitioner U/S
151 CPC seeking exemption from filing
True Copy.

17.

Affidavit

in

support

of

Exemption

Application
18.

Court Fee

19.

VAKALATNAMA
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
MISBAHUL HAQUE
(Counsel for the Petitioners)
B1/226, Prakash Mohalla
East of Kailash, Garhi
New Delhi- 110065
Mob: 7033357565
Email: Misbahjnv@gmail.com

PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) NO. _______ OF 2019

(In the matter of Public Interest Litigation):
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN & Anr.

... PETITIONERS
VERSUS

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY, DELHI & Ors.
..RESPONDENTS

To,
The Registrar,
Delhi High Court, Delhi

Subject: Urgent application for listing of the matter
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying petition on urgent basis. The ground of
urgency is that there has been blatant abuse of public offices and arbitrary
exercise of power by the officials of National Law University, Delhi with
respect to admission and appointment process. The authorities of the
National Law University, Delhi did not follow the prescribed fairness and
due process of law for admission in LLM and Ph.D Course and appointment
of teachers and have instead shown nepotism and favoritism.
The petition, hence, requires urgent attention and directions of this Hon’ble
Court.
Yours Faithfully,
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
MISBAHUL HAQUE

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

(Counsel for the Petitioners)
B1/226, Prakash Mohalla
East of Kailash, Garhi
New Delhi- 110065
Mob: 7033357565
Email: Misbahjnv@gmail.com

PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) NO. _______ OF 2019

(In the matter of Public Interest Litigation):
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN & Anr.

... PETITIONERS
VERSUS

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY, DELHI & Ors.
..RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION
To,
The Counsel for Respondents
Respondent No. 4 & 5.

Respected Sir,
The enclosed writ petition in the abovementioned is being filed on behalf of
the petitioner and is likely to be listed on ______ or any further date
thereafter.
Please take notice accordingly.
Yours Faithfully,

PETITIONERS
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
MISBAHUL HAQUE
(Counsel for the Petitioners)
B1/226, Prakash Mohalla
East of Kailash, Garhi
New Delhi- 110065
Mob: 7033357565
Email: Misbahjnv@gmail.com

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) NO. _______ OF 2019

(In the matter of Public Interest Litigation):
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN & Anr.

... PETITIONERS
VERSUS

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY, DELHI & Ors.
..RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF THE PARTIES

1. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,
S/O HARISH CHANDRA JAIN,
HOUSE NO. 147-B, EXPRESS VIEW APARTMENT
SECTOR – 93, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201304

2. NITISH BHARADWAJ
S/O NARESH CHAND SHARMA,
HOUSE NO. S-1, B-85,
SHYAM PARK EXTENSION,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, SAHIBABAD,
GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH - 201005
......PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

SECTOR-14, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110078

2. PROF. G.S. BAJPAI
PROFESSOR & REGISTRAR
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
SECTOR-14, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110078
3. PROF. RANBIR SINGH
VICE-CHANCELLOR
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
SECTOR-14, DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110078
4 . MEHAK BAJPAI,
D/O G.S. BAJPAI,
VISITING/GUEST FACULTY,
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
SECTOR-14, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110078
5 . DR. SABHYATAPRAKASH,
COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI
SECTOR-14, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110078
….. RESPONDENTS

PETITIONERS
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
MISBAHUL HAQUE
(Counsel for the Petitioners)
B1/226, Prakash Mohalla
East of Kailash, Garhi
New Delhi- 110065
Mob: 7033357565
Email: Misbahjnv@gmail.com

PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATE:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

BRIEF SYNOPSIS
The petitioners are in the category of respected citizens and they have been
devoted to consistently addressing themselves to public cause regarding
transparency and good governance that concern the community. Petitioners
are filing this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in order to advance the cause
of the transparency in selection and admission processes in National Law
University, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as NLUD). This PIL is related to
serious misconducts and abuse of public office by the Respondents at
NLUD. NLUD is a premiere academic institution providing legal education
and simultaneously promoting research in the field of law to foster the goals
of just and equitable society. It was established by an Act of the Government
of NCT, the National Law University Act, 2007. However, some of the
officials of the institution has, of late, not only indulged in malpractices but
has also resorted to flagrant violation of the rule of law to achieve certain
ulterior motives.
In the year 2011, while serving the National Law Institute University,
Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as NLIU) which is another premiere legal
institution in the country, as Professor, Respondent No. 2was accused of
serious misconducts and subsequently removed from the services after
holding a Judicial Inquiry dully approved by higher authorities of the said
University.
Thereafter in 2011-12, without following any process for public appointment
and ignoring the disqualification of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2
was appointed as professor by Respondent No. 3 without having required
qualifications. The claim of Petitioners, rest on the fact that neither any
advertisement was issued, nor any selection committee was established for

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

this appointment. In 2013 the Professorship of the Respondent No. 2, who
does not hold any law degree, and was ineligible to hold any post of law
teacher in India, was regularized, by Respondent No. 3.
In August 2014, the Respondent No. 2 was appointed to the post of Registrar
of NLUD. The Statutory prescription for the post of Registrar mandates that
the appointee must be a Professor of Law. The Respondent No. 2, possessing
bachelor’s in science, master’s in arts, and a Ph.D, is neither a Professor in
Law nor possesses any law degree (LLM/PhD in Law) to hold the post of
registrar at the NLUD.
That the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is being filed, seeking the writ of Quo Warranto, among other Writs,
ordering the Respondent No. 2 to vacate the office of the Registrar, NLUD.
The appointment of Respondent No. 2, as Registrar, is in violation of
Section 21 of the National Law University Act, 2007.
Since his appointment to the post of Registrar, Respondent No. 2 has
arbitrarily used his power and violated the rule of law to cause bestowal of
benefits to his relatives and acquaintances showing nepotism and favoritism
as the only modus operandi. This is noted from the appointments of
Respondent No. 4 & 5, and the admission of Respondent No. 4 to LLM
degree Course, Ph.D and eventually as guest faculty at NLUD. Respondent
No. 5 has been appointed as Communication Manager by way of nepotism.
During May-July 2019, one of the Petitioner, had filed RTI applications to
the Respondent No.1 for collecting documents on the said illegal
appointment and admission involving Respondent No. 2, 4 and 5. In JuneJuly 2019 Petitioner No.2 also submitted representations to Chief Justice of
India, Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi (also the Chancellor of NLUD),
Vice Chancellor, NLUD- (Respondent No.3 herein) and others, requesting

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

them to take actions against illegal appointments of Respondent No. 2 and 5
and manipulations of process for admission in LLM and Ph.D of
Respondent No. 4. However, no action has been taken by any authority
against the abuse of public offices and illegal appointments and admission,
till date.
Now, the Respondent No. 2 has manipulated the admission process to get
the Respondent No. 4admittedto the Ph.D. course 2019 at NLUD. The
question paper and evaluation of answer sheet for the entrance exam to the
Ph.D. course in 2019 was prepared by Research Committee headed by the
Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has also resorted to unfair means, by
manipulating exams center of his daughter i.e. Respondent No. 4, for the
said exam at the premise of NLUD on 05 May 2019. The manner of
declaring the results where only the Roll Numbers of the applicants are
displayed in conjunction with the fact that the Respondent No. 4 obtained
the highest marks in the said exam is also reflective of the extent of
manipulation, nepotism, and arbitrariness by the Respondent No. 2.
Furthermore, the Respondent No. 2,in addition to the abusive tactics, has
also performed his functions in utter conflicts of interest. The Respondent
No. 5 who is currently acting as the Communications Manager with the
NLUD is the niece of Respondent No. 2. An RTI filed in this regard has
brought to the fore the fact that the Selection Committee appointed for the
recruitment of the Respondent No.5 was chaired by Respondent No.2.
Further, there was also no public advertisement in newspapers for inviting
applications for the post.
In August/Sept 2019, Respondent No.2, who is also the convener/ in-charge
of LLM Governing Committee/ Centre for Post Graduate Legal Studies
(CPGLS) 2019, also facilitated illegal appointment of his daughter i.e.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Respondent No.4, without any process and qualification, as visiting/guest
faculty to teach LLM students at the NLUD.
The facts clearly reflect abuse of power, arbitrariness, nepotism &
favoritism, and conflict of interest in the modus operandi of essential
functionalities at the NLUD. Such flagrant violation of the rule of law by a
premiere legal institute is nothing short of mockery of the judicial system
and to make good to the losses an intervention by this Hon’ble Court is need
of the hour.
The National Law Universities across the country hold immense value in the
judicial system and promote legal education and training. The fact that these
Universities come within the purview of State for the purpose of the
Constitution is evident from the test laid in the case of Ajay Hasia vs.
Khalid Mujib [(1981) 1 SCC 722]. These Universities are statutory bodies
funded (in some cases fully and in other cases partly) by the State
Government. In the present case, the Preamble to the statute establishing
NLUD clearly shows a deep and pervasive control of the Government in the
functioning of the University. Therefore, NLUD comes within the purview
of ‘other authorities’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Appointment to various posts in public offices is guided by the rules
formulated in this regard. Sometimes, these rules are by-passed either in
connivance with the selectee or otherwise. The Supreme Court in various
judgments has categorically observed that where the statutory rules for
appointment to a certain post is not followed, such appointment is
unsustainable. Therefore, such bypass runs contrary to the established
practice and the constitutionalism of the land.
The Supreme Court has laid the law categorically in the case of Hari Bansh
Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto [(2010) 9 SCC 655] with respect to

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter PIL) in service
matters, including appointment to statutory posts, such as the one in
question. The observation by the Hon’ble Court in that case read with the
Delhi High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 justify the
maintainability of the present petition. The court vide para 20, observed –
“20. From the discussion and analysis, the following principles emerge:
“a) Except for a writ of quo warranto, PIL is not maintainable, in service
matters.
b) For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that
the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
c) Suitability or otherwise of a candidate for appointment to a post in
Government service is the function of the appointing authority and not of the
Court unless the appointment is contrary to statutory provisions/rules.”
The Supreme Court has clearly reflected upon the consequence of illegal
appointment, alongside defining what constitutes illegal appointment. In the
case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4
SCC 54], the court observed vide para 34 & 35 –
“34. …… The court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the
meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is
non est in the eye of the law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity.
35. We have noticed hereinbefore that in making appointment of the
appellant, the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and
statutory rules were not complied with. The appointment, therefore, was
illegal and in that view of the matter, it would be wholly improper for us to
invoke our equity jurisdiction.”
The Court in that case went a step further and observed, vide Para 28 –

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

“A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It
would not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same,
in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences.
Furthermore, in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was
not qualified on the cut-off date. Being ineligible to be considered for
appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity
of being heard.”
In the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika vs. State of Assam [(2013) 2 SCC
516], the Supreme court has observed in para 53 –
“53. …The aforesaid authorities clearly lay down the principle that when
there is violation of the recruitment rules, the recruitment is unsustainable.
Whether any active part is played by a selectee or not, has nothing to do
with the appointment made in contravention of the rules.”
In another case Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi [(1987) 1 SCC 227], the Apex Court has highlighted the need for
intervention by a superior court to make investigations into the issues of
public importance even though the petitioner may have moved the court for
vindication of a private interest.
The court observed –
“The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable state of affairs in
one of the premier universities of India. The petitioner might have moved in
his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the
Bombay University in one of the highest medical degrees was a matter of
public interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to the notice of the
Court, it was the duty of the Court to the public that the truth and the
validity of the allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of
public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of public institution

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

becomes necessary and private litigation assumes the character of public
interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary
and essential for the administration of justice.”

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
CHRONOLOGY
OF EVENTS
Sept- Oct 2011

DETAILS
Removal of Respondent No. 2 from the
services of NLIU, Bhopal on serious
charge of misconduct and corruption.
And removal of Respondent No. 2by the
Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature
at Madhya Pradesh also approved.

2011-2012

Backdoor

appointment

of

the

Respondent No. 2 as Professor by the
NLUD sans advertisement or selection
committee and qualification.
November 2013

Appointment of Respondent no. 2,
without any law degree/qualification to
hold the post of professor, by ignoring
the

eligibility

advertisement

as

per

2013

the

public

and

UGC

Regulations 2010, was regularized by the
University.
August 2014

Appointment of the Respondent No. 2 as

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Registrar of NLUD by the Respondent
No. 3, in violation of Section 21 of
NLUD Act, 2007.
Since 2014- till Respondent No. 2 appointed as the
date

coordinator for admissions to Ph.D.&
LL.M.

July-August 2017

Admission of Respondent No. 4 to the
LL.M. Course.

July-August 2018

Respondent No. 4 awarded the Silver
Medal for securing the Second Rank in
the LL.M. Course.

2018-2019

Respondent No. 5, niece of Respondent
No. 2 appointed illegally, without any
fair

process,

as

Communications

Manager at NLUD.
05 May 2019

Respondent No. 4 appeared at the NLUD
Entrance exam center for Ph.D 2019.
Respondent No.2 used unfair means to
ensure the admission of his daughter i.e.
Respondent No.4, to PhD Degree course
2019 at NLU Delhi

22
2019

June-August Results

of

the

Ph.

D.

Entrance

Exam2019 declared, and the Respondent
No. 4 secured the highest marks. In
August

2019,

Respondent

No.4was

admitted to Ph.D Course 2019 at NLU

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Delhi
June - July 2019

Representation sent to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of High Court of Delhi and ViceChancellor of NLU, Delhi regarding
complaint against Respondent No. 2 for
abuse of public office in admission of
Respondent No. 4 in LLM and Ph.D and
appointment of Respondent No. 5 as
Communication Manager at NLUD.

August/September Respondent
2019

No.2

facilitated

the

appointment of Respondent No.4 as a
visiting/guest faculty for LL.M. course,
without

any

qualification

and

due

process.
Hence, this Public Interest Litigation.

The present case not only brings to fore the irregularities in the admission
and appointment process but also show manipulation in the results of
internal examination to fulfill ulterior motives.

Hence, the present Petition.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL ) NO. _______ OF 2019

(In the matter of Public Interest Litigation):

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN & Anr.

... PETITIONERS
VERSUS

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERISTY, DELHI & Ors.
..RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST FILED UNDER ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING A WRIT OF
QUO WARRANTO OR ANY OTHER WRIT WHICH THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR REMOVAL FROM
THE

PUBLIC

APPOINTMENTS

OFFICE

AND

QUASHING

OF

ILLEGAL

OF RESPONDENT NOs 2, 4 & 5 ; AND TO

QUASH ILLEGAL ADMISSION OF RESPONDENT No. 4 TO LLM
& PH.D COURSE 2019 AND OTHER ACTIONS AS PER THE
PRAYERS, FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14, 16, AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DEHI ACT 2007 AND UGC
REGULATIONS, 2010 ON APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

To,
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

THE HUMBLE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That, the petitioners are filing the instant writ petition in Public Interest.
There is no motive OR reason other than the larger public interest in filing
this PIL. The petitioners have no personal interest in the litigation and the
petition is not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/ institution/
body and that there is no motive other than of public interest in filing the
writ petition.

2. That, the source of averments made in this petition are based on authentic
documents and information derived from publically available documents
either obtained through RTI,

Newspaper reports and from the official

website of National Law University Delhi.

3. That, the petition if allowed would bring transparency in admission and
appointment in public office at NLU Delhi which in turn would benefit the
citizens of this country in general, and existing and prospective students and
staff of NLU Delhi in particular, as rule of law is essential for transparency
and fairness in public institutions and such brazen violation of law in
admission and appointment by the most reputed Law University i.e, National
Law University Delhi and the Officials of National Law University Delhi.
Since these persons are too numerous and have no direct personal interest in
the matter, they are unlikely to approach this Hon’ble Court on this issue.
The present petition is for the benefit of the student community, as the
students, due to fear of loss of career, are afraid to approach this Hon’ble
Court. The Petitioners are filing this PIL to secure fundamental Rights
guaranteed under Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of the Indian

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Constitution. Hence the Petitioner’s herein are preferring this Public Interest
Litigation.

4. That, the affected parties by the orders sought in the writ petition would be
National Law University Delhi, Prof. GS Bajpai, Prof. Ranbir Singh, Mehak
Bajpai, Dr. Sabhyatha Prakash who have been made as Respondent(s). To
the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, no other persons/ Bodies/
Institutions are likely to be affected by the orders sought in the writ
petition/PIL.

5. That, the Petitioner No. 1 is a retired public servant (an engineer in power
sector) and resident of the National Capital Region in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
Petitioner No. 2 is a young working professional (senior analyst in public
policy and regulatory affair) in a reputed private firm and is a residents of
the National Capital Region in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioners are
respected citizens and they have been devoted to consistently addressing
themselves to public cause regarding transparency and good governance that
concern the community. Petitioner No. 1 has exposed corruptions in various
Government Department/PSUs by way of RTI and sending representations
to respective Vigilance Officers to unearth the corruptions. Petitioners are
working with a benign motive to keep a check on transparency and good
governance in public offices. That the Petitioners have no motive other than
bringing to fore the malpractices being adopted in NLUD, conflict of
interests and the abuse of powers therein.
The Petitioners have means to pay the cost, if any, imposed by the Hon’ble
High Court and undertakes to abide by the order of the Hon'ble Court.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

6. That, the petitioners had made several representations to the Vice Chancellor
of National Law University, Delhi as explained later in the petition. The
petitioners thereafter made a representation to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Ranjan Gogoi, the Chief Justice of India and also Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Delhi Mr. Arvind Kejriwal and other eminent persons. Neither any action
has been taken nor any meaningful response has been given by the
authorities.

7. That, the Petitioners have established his credentials through filing RTI and
exposing corruption in Governments Departments/PSUs. Petitioner No. 2
has not filed any PIL before any High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Petitioner No. 1 has also advance the cause of public interest through
various PILS’s before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, as shown in the following table:
Petitioner 1:
Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
S.N

Case No.

Status

Outcome

o.
1

All

India

Power Judgment

PIL is turned

Engineer Federation vs. Passed dated- down but the
Sasan Power Ltd. & 08.12.2016

Civil Appeals

Ors.

are allowed.

C.A

No.

5881-

5882/2016

Before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay:

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Sl.

Case No.

Status

Outcomes

No.
1

Ashok

Kumar

Insurance
and

vs. Notice issued

Pending

Regulatory
Development

Authority & Ors.
CRPIL/2/2017
2

Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Notice issued

Pending

Reserve Bank of India
& Ors.
WPL/2578/2017
3

Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Disposed off

Rejected

Registrar General of
Bombay High Court.
WPL/3167/2018

CASE IN BRIEF:
8. That, the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as NLUD) is established
by a statute, namely, the National Law University Delhi Act, 2007
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2008). That the Respondent No. 2 is the
Registrar and the Respondent No. 3 is the Vice- Chancellor of the
University. Thus, both the Respondents are amenable to the Writ
Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

9. That the Respondent No. 4 is a daughter of Respondent No. 2, who has been
admitted to LLM and thereafter in Ph.D and eventually appointed as guest

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

faculty at NLUD, all by way of nepotism and defying the established rules
and regulations.

10.That the Respondent No. 5 is a close relative (niece)of Respondent No. 2,
who has been appointed as Communication Manager at NLUD by the
committee headed by Respondent No.2, adopting nepotism and favoritism in
public office and the same has been explained herein in forthcoming paras.

11.That, the Respondent No. 1 (NLUD) is bound by the regulations issued by
the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UGC) with
respect to minimum qualifications for the appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance
of standards in higher education, 2010 for the appointment of teachers.

12.That, the present petition is being filed in order to challenge the unfair and
arbitrary manner in which the Respondents have abused the power conferred
to them by virtue of their office(s). Respondent No. 2, as professor, has
acquired his position at NLU-Delhi illegally and the Respondent No. 3 has
also illegally appointed Respondent No. 2 as the Registrar of NLUD
showing utter disrespect to the procedure established by law.

The

Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution seek a Writ of Quo
Warranto or any other appropriated writ to cancel and remove Respondent
No.2 from his position which he acquired in 2011-12 and November 2013.
The present petition is for the benefit of the student community, as the
students, due to fear of loss of career, are afraid to approach this Hon’ble
Court. The Petitioners are filing this PIL to secure fundamental Rights

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

guaranteed under Article 14, Article 16 and Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

13.That, the Respondent

No.2 in Sept- Oct 2011was removed from the

National Law Institute University, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as NLIU,
Bhopal) on the serious grounds of committing misconduct and corruption. In
October 2011, the Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (also the Chancellor of NLIU, Bhopal) approved the findings of the
Judicial Enquiry conducted by Justice V K Agarwal, recommending strict
disciplinary action against the Respondent No 2, and had also dismissed the
representations of Respondent No.2.
A Copy of Times of India, Newspaper, Indore, MP Dated 17 October 2011
reporting removal of Respondent No 2 from service in September/October
2011 by NLIU Bhopal, and The Order of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High
Court: WP-18042-2010- Prof (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai Vs National Law Institute
University, Bhopal dated 12 January, 2016, dismissing his Petition, is
attached as Annexure P- 1 (Colly).

14.That, after the removal from NLIU, Bhopal the Respondent No. 2, in the
year of 2011-12,was appointed as a Professor at NLUD by Respondent No
3. This appointment was made without any public advertisement or
following any selection procedure by the University. The appointment
shows arbitrariness and favoritism in the selection process and utter
disregard to the UGC regulations 2010 for making such appointment and
disrespect to the rule of law.
In July 2013, NLUD invited applications from the eligible candidates, as per
the UGC Regulations for the appointment of teachers 2010, for the post of

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

'Professor of law'. Although the Respondent No.2 was ineligible for the post
of professor of law, but Respondent No.3, after discarding all legal
requirements as per the UGC Regulations 2010, still appointed Respondent
No. 2 to the post of professor in November 2013. Respondent No.2, who
does not hold any law degree (LLM/PhD in Law), and also was ineligible to
hold any post of professor of law as per the UGC Regulations 2010 and
advertisement July 2013, possesses a bachelor’s in science, master’s in arts,
and a Ph.D.
That the minimum qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor and
Associate Professor prescribed under the University Grants Commission
Regulations 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 2010 was as follows:3.0.0. RECRUITMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
3.1.0 The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and
Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India
advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection
Committees as per the provisions made under these Regulations
to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the
concerned university. The composition of such committees
should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.
4.1.0 PROFESSOR
A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the
concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of
high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books
and/or research/policy papers.
(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in
university/college, and/or experience in research at the
University/National level institutions/industries, including
experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral
level.
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new
curricula and courses, and technology – mediated teaching
learning process.
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic
Performance Indicator (API)

based Performance

Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation
in Tables I to IX of Appendix III.
OR
B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation
in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions
to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline,
to be substantiated by credentials.
True copy of the advertisement 2013 inviting applications for the post of
Professor of Law, NLU Delhi and the True copy of relevant pages of UGC
Regulations, 2010 on qualification for the post of 'Professor of Law' are
attached as ANNEXURE P- 2 (Colly)

15.That in August 2014, the Respondent No. 2 was appointed to the post of
Registrar of NLUD by Respondent No 3. The Statutory prescription under
Section 21 (1) of NLU D Act 2007 for the post of Registrar mandates that

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the appointee must be a 'Professor of Law'. Respondent No 2 is neither a
Professor in Law nor possesses any law degree to hold the post of Registrar
at the NLUD. Therefore, the appointment of the Respondent No. 2 to the
post of Registrar is in violation of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of
2008 (as amended by 2009). The Respondent No. 2 has since been serving
as the Registrar of NLUD. National Law University Delhi Act 2007 Section
21 (1) reads as under:
Section 21. Registrar:(1) The Registrar, who shall be an
academic person in law not below the rank of a Professor
shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation
of the selection committee constituted by the Executive
Council and headed by the Vice-Chancellor on such terms and
conditions of service as the selection committee may specify
subject to the provisions of the Statutes and Regulations.
Copy of Section 21 of NLUD Act 2007 and Resolution of Executive
Council, NLUD dated 26.08.2014 appointing Respondent No. 2 as the
Registrar of NLUD and the qualification of Respondent No 2 are attached as
ANNEXURE P- 3 (Colly).

16.That, Respondent No. 2 in collusion with the Respondent No. 3 has been
abusing his power since 2014. The powers have been abused in respect of
admission process for, LL.M. and Ph.D., appointments of teaching and nonteaching staff. Respondent No. 2, since his illegal appointment as the
Registrar, has been the in-charge of the admission and examination process
for LL.M. and Ph.D. In 2017, Respondent No. 4, who is also the daughter of
Respondent No. 2, got admission through unfair means to the LL.M. course.
The Respondent No. 2, as the Convener of governing Committee/ Centre for

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Post Graduate Legal Studies (CPGLS) of LLM Course, manipulated the
results of LL.M. 2018 for the benefits of the Respondent No. 4 who also
secured the Silver Medal for performing second best in the LL.M. batch of
2017-18 at NLUD, by unfair means.
Copy of List of LLM Students in 2017 and List of Gold Medal Candidates
and Composition of governing Committee/ Centre for Post Graduate Legal
Studies (CPGLS) of

LLM Course are attached as ANNEXURE P- 4

(Colly).

17. That, the Respondent No.1 (NLUD) issued a notification for the
appointment of 1 (One) Research Associate and 1 (One) Field Investigator
for contractual work on certain research project. Copy of the notification is
attached as ANNEXURE P- 5.

18.That, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Research Associate with two
other persons which shows there were three (03) appointments made to the
post for which only 1 (One) appointment was advertised for. This fact
clearly reflects an attempt to manipulate the results and camouflage the
abuse of power with more than the advertised appointments. That, this is an
attempt towards diverting the attention, by the powers that be, from any
fingers being raised on the administration.
Copy of the minutes of the Selection Committee dated 17 September 2018 is
attached as ANNEXURE P- 6.

19.That, the Respondent No.2 by virtue of his authority in 2018-19 managed to
get his niece i.e. Respondent No. 5 illegally appointed at his office. In an
RTI filed in this regard brought to fore the fact that the Respondent No. 2

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

was the chairperson of the selection committee which appointed the
Respondent No. 5, without any public notification in newspaper for inviting
applications for the post, as Communication Manager. That, the chain of
events clearly reflects a conflict of interest and favoritism by Respondent
No. 2 towards Respondent No. 5.
A copy of the internal advertisement received from an RTI filed and the
minutes of the Selection Committee for the appointment of Respondent No
5, dated 05.12.2018 respectively is attached as ANNEXURE P-7.

20.That the entrance exam for Ph.D Admission 2019 at NLUD was held on
May 5th, 2019. That, the Respondent No. 2 heads the Research Advisory
Committee and teaches research methodology and the question paper for
Ph.D. entrance was totally based on the Research methodology. That, in the
results of the Ph.D. entrance exam, Respondent No. 4 has secured the
highest marks. Exam Centre of the Ph.D entrance exam of Respondent No 4
was also fixed at the NLUD campus. That only, two inferences could be
drawn from this set of circumstances that either the question paper was
prepared by the Respondent No. 2 and he shared the same with Respondent
No. 4 or contradistinctively the Respondent No. 2 knew about the question
paper (even if he was not directly involved in its preparation, which is highly
unlikely owing to this position as controller of admission to the various
courses in NLUD) and he shared this knowledge with the Respondent No. 4.
That, add furthermore, the declared results only point out the roll numbers of
the candidate and no other information is provided for in this respect which
shows nothing but an attempt to manipulate the results and hide it from
public scrutiny.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

It is apposite to mention herein that the Respondent No. 2 is in a position to
manipulate or directly influence the admission process of the University,
especially that of LLM and Ph.D. That, in an RTI reply, it was revealed that
the Registrar controls all the administrative staff which conducts all the
examinations in the University including the evaluation of

Research

Proposal of the prospective candidates, willing to get admitted into Ph.D.
Copy of Notification for admission process to PhD in Law 2019, Results Of
Ph.D. Entrance Exam 2019 Dated – 22 June 2019 and Composition of
Research Committee for the admission to Ph.D Course dated 29 June 2019,
respectively are attached as ANNEXURE P- 8 (Colly).

21.That, the Petitioners submitted many representations to the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India, Chancellor of NLUD (Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court
of Delhi), Vice Chancellor of National Law University Delhi, Chief Minister
of Delhi, Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi to take action for abuse of office of
Registrar by Respondent No. 2, for admission of Respondent No. 4 to
LL.M. in 2017 and Ph.D. in 2019 and also the appointment of Respondent
No.5 as Communication Manager. That, no action whatsoever and
howsoever has been taken in this regard.
Copy of Representations on abuse of powers by Respondent No 2 to the
Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice High Court of Delhi (Chancellor, NLU
D), Vice Chancellor- NLU Delhi- Respondent No 3, 22 July 2019, 29 June
2019, & 22 July 2019 are attached as Annexure P-9.

22.That, the Respondent No. 2, is also the regulator of LL.M. and Ph.D. courses
and has facilitated the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as a visiting/guest
faculty, who is not qualified enough to hold that post. The appointment of

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the Respondent No. 4 sans the procedure established by law and the same is
in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
A Copy of the LLM Time Table 2019 Batch, showing the Appointment Of
Respondent No.4 as a Visiting/Guest Faculty at NLU Delhi and Copy Of
Composition of LLM Governing Committee/ Centre for Post Graduate Legal
Studies (CPGLS), are attached as ANNEXURE P-10 (Colly)

23.That, the present writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is
maintainable under Article 226 of Indian Constitution and is not barred by
any law of limitation and all the Respondents are located within the local
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

24.That the Petitioners have not filed any other petition, suit or application in
any manner regarding the matter of dispute in this Hon'ble Court, or any
other High Court or Before Hon'ble Supreme Court or any other Court
throughout the territory of India. The Petitioner have no other better remedy
available.

GROUNDS
The Petitioners are requesting for the appropriate relief from this Hon’ble
Court on the following amongst other, grounds:
1. Because the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as professor in 2011-12 and
Nov 2013by the Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and violates the
Constitution, UGC Regulations 2010 as well as National Law University
Delhi Act, 2007.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

2. Because despite the dismissal of Respondent No. 2 on committing serious
misconducts after holding Judicial Inquiry in 2010-11 by NLIU Bhopal, the
Respondent No. 2, without any process and lack of requisite qualification
was appointed at NLUD in 2011-12 by Respondent No 3.
3. Because the appointment of Respondent No. 2 as Registrar in August 2014
by the Respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and violates the Constitution
and Section 21(1) of NLUD Act 2007.
4. Because the actions of the respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 3 are mala
fide in appointing the staff members and admission of students. And
Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 have completely acted ultra vires
the rule of law.
5. Because, the process of admission to LLM and PhD is not fair and
transparent, and marred by favoritism and nepotism in public office.
6. Because the appointment of Respondent No. 4 and 5 have been done in
arbitrary and manipulative manners disregarding due process and rule of law
in the public appointments by Respondent No.2 and 3, is a reflection of
gross abuse of powers for private gains.
7. Because, the officers/ Professors were continuously abusing their power and
using it for their own good. The arbitrariness by the professors is a violation
of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right i.e. Right to Equality.
8. Because the Respondents have acted on, no procedure other than biasness,
patent illegality, nepotism, arbitrariness, and their whims and fancies.
9. That the rampant abuse of public office and nepotism in admission and
appointment in public University and the manifest unwillingness of the
executive to take requisite action in order to ensure that the culprits are
punished and transparency in public offices are maintained, gravely impairs
the right of the people to live in a transparent and fair society. This violates

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The right to life guaranteed to the
people also includes in its fold the right to live in a society that is free, fair
and transparent.

On these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Writ
Petition by granting reliefs as prayed for.

That, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner most
respectfully prays as under:

PRAYER
In the facts and circumstances stated above the Petitioner prays before this
Hon’ble Court to issue directions in the form of a writ of Quo Warranto or
any other appropriate writs or orders and may be pleased to:
1. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ directing the
Respondent No. 2 to vacate the office of the Registrar, NLUD.

2. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ thereby quashing
the illegal appointment of Respondent No. 2 as Professor w.e.f. 2011-12 &
further regularised in November 2013 at the NLUD.

3. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ directing the
Respondent No.3 to show-cause by what authority he appointed Respondent
No. 2 as the Professor and later the Registrar of NLUD;

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

4. To issue a Writ of Prohibition or the appropriate Writ directing the
Respondent No. 4 to stop using the degree of LL.M. for any purpose
whatsoever and in any manner howsoever from the date of issue of such
writ;
5. To issue an appropriate Writ to cancel the admission of Respondent No.4 to
2019 Batch of the Ph.D degree course of the University.
6. To issue a Writ Mandamus directing the University to take disciplinary
actions against the Respondent No. 2 and 3 for blatant abuse of powers;
7. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or the appropriate Writ thereby quashing
the illegal appointment of Respondent No. 4 and 5 at the NLUD.
8. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the University to take admissions
through an independent agency like that of the CLAT Consortium or any
other independent agency, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit; to rule out
any manipulation in future and maintain transparency in the admission and
appointment process at NLUD;
9. To, impose such costs, as the Respondent No. 2 might have gained by virtue
of the Office to which he was illegally appointed, on both the Respondent
No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 since appointment in 2011, with retrospective
effect;
10. To pass such other or further orders as this court may deem fit to meet the
ends of justice and equity;
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

PETITIONERS
THROUGH
ADVOCATES
MISBAHUL HAQUE

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

(Counsel for the Petitioners)
B1/226, Prakash Mohalla
East of Kailash, Garhi
New Delhi- 110065
Mob: 7033357565
Email: Misbahjnv@gmail.com