HARILAL RAJAN Vs. MANAGER COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learner senior counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent as also the learned counsel appearing for the University and the learned senior Government Pleader.

(2.) THE impugned interlocutory order was issued by the learned Single Judge essentially for the reason that the proceedings were pending before the Chancellor. Therefore, on 12.8.2014, the Division Bench wanted the stand taken by the Chancellor to be mentioned by the learned Government Pleader. On 14.8.2014, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted, on instructions from Raj Bhavan authorities that the Chancellor of University has required the Vice Chancellor to consider the representations and therefore, no matter is Writ Appeal No.1021 of 2014 2 pending before the Chancellor. We had recorded that submission and adjourned the matter for further consideration.

(3.) AS is rightly pointed out today, the impugned interlocutory order cannot continue to hold any more since it was issued only on the premise that the Chancellor was in seizin of the proceedings. May be that the writ petitioner has different other grounds for interim or final relief in the Writ Petition. Therefore, without prejudice to all those rights and leaving open the right of parties to seek interlocutory orders afresh before the learned single Judge, the impugned interlocutory order is vacated. The Writ Appeal is ordered accordingly. All other issues are left open.