N K SHAH Vs. CHANCELLOR KUMAON UNIVERSITY NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Dr. N. K. Shah, by means of the present writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus com manding the respondents to treat the petitioner's personal promotion dated 26-12-1984 given to respondents 4 and 5 as ineffective and inoperative and to treat the petitioner as senior to respondents 4 and 5 in the Economics Depart ment of the University. It has been further prayed that by means of a writ in the nature of mandamus, the Chancellor of Kumaon University be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21-5-1985 forthwith.

(2.) IT has been averred in para 39 of the writ petition that the petitioner has availed the remedy available to him under Section 68 of the U. P. State University Act and in spite of his best efforts, and the orders issued by the Court, the representation of the petitioner was not being decided. Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act reads as under : "if any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as on is entitled to be a member of any authority or other body of the University or whether any decision of any authority or officer of the University (including any question as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulations not being a Statute or Ordinance approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor) is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final. "

(3.) IN this connection, reliance was placed by the learned Counsel in the case of Atul Goyal v. Registrar, University of Gorakhpur and others, 1985 UPLBEC 441, wherein Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble O. P. Saxena and Hon'ble I. P. Singh, JJ. indicated : "the petitioner was selected for admission to B. Tech. Course of Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur and his provi sional admission was subject to his production of a certificate of having passed B. Sc. Examination. The rule regarding exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ may be granted in a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. It does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, but it is only one of the circumstances that the Court should take into consi deration exercising its discretionary jurisdiction. A representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act is not a speedy remedy cannot be considered an efficacious remedy. There was a reasonable apprehension of peti tioner's admission being cancelled on his non-production of the certificate. In the circumstances it cannot be accepted that the writ of certiorari should be refused as the petitioner failed to take recourse to representation under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. "