New Delhi: Almost a month after the Supreme Court remitted a petition, questioning the appointment of Unnat P. Pandit as the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), to the Delhi High Court, the latter Thursday issued a notice seeking response from him as well as the government.
Led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, the bench gave four weeks to Pandit and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to submit their replies to the petition that claims the appointment, responsible for approving intellectual property rights, was made in contravention to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) advertisement for the CGPDTM.
Pandit’s lawyer, who was present during the hearing, urged the bench to decide the petition early, preferably within two weeks. However, the high court did not pay heed to the request, as it stuck to the four-week time granted to the respondents for placing their replies.
The high court is expected to hear the matter next in May.
The petition against Pandit’s appointment as the head of body was filed by the All India Patents’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA), a registered body of patent officers working in the CGPDTM office. This is one of the many cases which AIPOWA has filed against Pandit or the decisions taken by him.
AIPOWA had moved the Delhi HC in August 2024, two years after Pandit was appointed for a five-year term ending in April 2027. But last year, the high court refused to entertain its writ petition of quo warranto, stating that a public interest litigation (PIL) is not maintainable in cases of service-related matters.
But in February this year, the Supreme Court allowed AIPOWA’s challenge to the order and remitted the matter back to the high court, after observing that the association’s writ of quo warranto was maintainable, with a direction to undertake a fresh exercise.
A quo warranto is a judicial remedy to challenge an individual’s right to hold a public office, franchise, and in some cases, a corporate office. A petition of this nature is aimed to prevent usurpation of public office by an individual.
AIPOWA, represented by advocate Gyanant Singh, claimed in its petition that Pandit lacked the requisite experience to be the CGPDTM.
Moreover, the petitioner argued that he did not possess annual confidential reports (ACRs) from the last five years as required under the terms of the DoPT letter issued in June 2020 to fill the post.
According to the AIPOWA petition, Pandit’s experience before assuming the role of CGPDTM did not count as the qualifying service for the post.
Pandit had been working at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for 22 months, which made him ineligible for being appointed on deputation under DoPT norms, the AIPOWA said.
With a PhD and MSc in Chemistry, Pandit also worked in the Atal Innovation Mission. Moreover, he had served as officer on special duty (OSD) to the Union minister for commerce and industry.
Asking the high court to quash Pandit’s appointment, the AIPOWA also questioned the five-year service tenure, which, the petitioner association said, stands in contravention of the 2010 DoPT office memorandum, which limits appointments on deputation to three years.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)