DR. RAKESH GUPTA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010146992023 2026:CGHC:38789-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
INDRAJEET SAHU
Date: 2026.09.02
18:22:38 +0530
INDRAJEET
SAHU
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)

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. 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