RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL Vs. CHANCELLOR AGRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed permanent Assistant Registrar of the Agra University by a resolution of the Executive Council of the University dated 28th May, 1971. By a subsequent resolution dated 16th February, 1972 the Executive Council appointed the petitioner as Deputy Registrar. A representation under Section 35 of the Agra University Act was made by one Sanat Kumar to the Chancellor against the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar. After calling for the comments from the University and explanation from the petitioner the Chancellor by his order dated 22nd June, 1972, set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar. THE Chancellor took the view that the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar fall within the purview of the term "clerical staff" of the University and in view of Statute 6 of the Statutes framed under the Agra University Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it was the Registrar and not the Executive Council of the University who could make appointment of the "clerical staff." He further held that the resolution of the Executive Council appointing the petitioner as Deputy Registrar was also invalid because the Executive Council did not invite the advice of the Finance Committee as contemplated by Section 18 (1-A) of the Act. THE appointment of the petitioner was found to be irregular by the Chancellor also on the ground that the Executive Council had not awaited the financial report of the Reorganisation Committee of the University. THE petitioner challenged this order of the Chancellor in this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4838 of 1972. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 14th May, 1973. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 170 of 1973. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the special appeal on 3rd September, 1973.

(2.) THEREAFTER another representation was made by Sanat Kumar to Chancellor against the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Registrar by the Executive Council by its resolution dated 28th May, 1971, mentioned above. The Chancellor again called for the comments of the University and the explanation of the petitioner and allowed this representation also by his order dated 22nd December, 1973. The petitioner's appointment as Assistant Registrar was set aside. The Chancellor reiterated his earlier view that the post of an Assistant Registrar came within the purview of "clerical staff" and appointment on this post could be made not by the Executive Council but by the Registrar and that since advice from the Finance Committee had not been taken by the Executive Council before appointing the petitioner as Assistant Registrar the appointment was illegal having been really made against a non-existent post. The Chancellor relied on the decision of this Court in the aforesaid Special Appeal No. 170 of 1973 mentioned above. On 29th December, 1973, the Registrar of the University passed a consequential order reverting the petitioner as Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor. It is these two orders which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with this question, however, we consider it necessary to dispose of certain technical pleas raised by counsel for the petitioner. It was pointed out that on 22nd December, 1973, when the Chancellor allowed the representation of Sanat Kumar the Act had already been repealed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Ordinance, 1973, which was promulgated on 12th June, 1973, and came into force on 18th June, 1973, in pursuance of the relevant notification issued under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Ordinance. This Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973 which came into force on 2nd September, 1973. The aforesaid Ordinance and the Act shall hereinafter be referred to as the Ordinance and the 1973 Act respectively. On its basis it was urged that since on the date when the Chancellor passed the impugned order the Act including Section 35 under which the representation of Sanat Kumar had been made stood repealed no representation in the eye of law remained pending before the Chancellor which could be decided by the impugned order. We find it difficult to agree with this submission.