VIDYA NIWAS MISRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been consolidated and are being disposed of by a common judgment the parties being the same arid the subject matter also being similar in fact Civil Misc. Writ No. 2373 of 1966 covers the subject matter of the connected Civil Misc. Writ No. 1835 of 1966.

(2.) IN petition No. 1835 of 1966 the petitioner Dr. Vidya Niwas Misra, questioned the validity of a reasolution of the Executive Council of the University of Gorakhpur refusing to confirm him in the post of Reader in the University in the Sanskrit Department passed in the meeting of the Council held on 7th May, 1966. This petition was presented in this Court on 20th May 1966 and was admitted on that date. It appears that subsequently at a meeting of the Executive Council of the University held on 9-7-1966 a resolution Was passed refusing to extend the period of probation of the petitioner and terminating his services, This led to the filing of Civil Misc. Writ No. 2373 of 1966 which was presented before this Court and admitted on 15-7-1966. In this latter petition the former resolution of the Executive Council of the Universitv dated 7th May, 1966 has also been challenged. In effect the petition (No. 1835 of 1966) filed earlier in a way, has merged into this latter petition.

(3.) THE resolution of the Executive Council dated 7-5-66 has been challenged on the ground that as no proper notice in accordance with the regulations framed by the Executive Council was given to all the members of the Council the resolution was vitiated. Its validity has also been challenged on the ground that neither any opportunity was given to the petitioner as required by the statutes of the University to explain his conduct before the Executive Council nor was the resolution bona fide passed, it having been passed mala fide, and on extraneous considerations. The main attack on the validity of the subsequent resolution dated 9-7-1966, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, is based on the ground that no proper or reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the Executive Council to put up his case in order to meet the grounds on the basis of which it was considered that the petitioner's work and conduct during the period of probation was not satisfactory. This resolution has also been attacked cm the ground that it was mala fide and was based on extraneous considerations.