Key Points

A single-judge bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said that it appeared that the writ petition filed against Dr. Sharma was a proxy litigation filed at the behest of terminated employees.

In 2022, the Union Ministry of Education issued Dr. Sharma a show cause notice stating that he did not submit his academic degree certificates and misrepresented educational qualifications for his appointment.

In its judgment, the Justice Tiwari-led Bench observed that the writ of quo warranto was not maintainable against Dr Sharma's appointment, as he validly assumed the office of Director, post his selection/recommendation by the SCSC (Search-cum-Selection Committee) under the category "nomination from eminent person".

"Merely because some suspicion has been cast, it does not act for this court to, in exercise of writ of Quo Warranto, order a roving and fishing enquiry. Precisely, the above is not the scope of the writ of quo warranto. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in J. Jeyakumaran's case, clearly held that it cannot be a purpose of the writ of Quo Warranto to carry out a roving enquiry to find some reason or other to unseat any office bearer," the Punjab and Haryana HC ruled.

It added that for appointment to the post of Director, the SCSC was empowered to recommend the names of candidates shortlisted on account of their possessing the advertised eligibility criteria, and equally empowered to recommend in the panel of candidates the names of those candidates nominated from "eminent persons".

Reportedly, Dr Sharma has been subjected to multiple inquiries, including a visitorial inquiry requiring examination of his credentials and eligibility for the post of Director. Apart from this, a special audit of CAG is ongoing in relation to the appointment of the Director.

- IANS