The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi has received notice from the Delhi High Court (HC) in connection with a quo warranto (questioning of authority) writ suit contesting Professor Ramgopal Rao's appointment as a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at IIT Delhi, claiming a violation of statutory restrictions.
Dr Vishal Vaibhav, an Assistant Professor at IIT Delhi has filed the petition.
Currently serving as Group Vice-Chancellor at Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani Campuses, Prof V Ramgopal Rao received two years of extraordinary leave from IIT Delhi.
This was informed by independent researcher Dr Brijesh Rai through a LinkedIn post.
According to the petition, Prof Ram Gopal Rao's appointment flouted the standard recruitment procedure. It is claimed that the former chairman of the board of governors established an ad-hoc committee before the board had chosen to invite someone to fill the professorship in the electrical engineering department.
Furthermore, it is alleged in the petition, as mentioned in the LinkedIn post, that the Board of Governors' previous approval was required before the ad-hoc committee could be formed, but this approval was not received. The petitioner also raised concerns regarding impartiality by alleging that several of the ad-hoc committee members were Prof Ram Gopal Rao's colleagues from IIT Bombay.
The petition claims that Prof Ram Gopal Rao's appointment is ultra vires (beyond the legal authority) and seeks that it be revoked.
Advocates for IIT Delhi and the Chairman of IIT Delhi's Board of Governors strongly opposed the petition, as per the post, disputing Dr Vaibhav's intention. They claimed that the petitioner lacked locus standi (place of standing to appear before the court) and had concealed certain information.
Further, they allege that Dr Vaibhav himself has been facing a disciplinary inquiry, and is currently under suspension. They called to dismiss the writ petition as Dr Vaibhav has been posting “comments on the social media platforms, which are highly derogatory,” which disentitle him from filing the writ petition.
In response, the counsel for Dr Vaibhav stated that locus standi is not required in a writ of quo warranto and that no information had been withheld. Furthermore, the petitioner does not seek any personal relief with this petition, the counsel for Dr Vaibhav added.
However, Dr Vaibhav and his petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he would not post “anything on the social media which is abusive or derogatory to any member of the faculty,” and “will refrain from publicising the filing of this writ petition.”
