TRIVENI PRASAD DUBEY Vs. CHANCELLOR CHANDRA SHEKHAR AZAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AT LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24th May, 1993, passed by the Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') whereby representation of one Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla Junior Clerk under Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Audyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') has been allowed and the order dated 18th December, 1991, passed by the University passed in favour of the petitioner has been quashed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on temporary basis by the order dated 18th August, 1981, issued by the Director of University. THE aforesaid order shows that the Vice-Chancellor appointed petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-320 and terms and conditions set out in the order and condition No. (iv) thereof reads as under : "(iv) Your services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason after giving proper notice as per rules."

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chancellor erred in law by observing that the writ petition against the order of termination dated 16th November, 1981, had already been dismissed on 18th August, 1982, it was not open to the University to recall that order and treating the petitioner as has continued in service which has the effect of making termination order dated 16th November, 1981 non est. He further contended that since he was reinstated by the order of Board of Management there was no occasion for the Chancellor to nullify that order only on the basis that against the order of termination, Writ Petition No. 6986 of 1982 was already dismissed. He further contended that before the University, the respondent No. 3 was not a party at any stage either when the petitioner was terminated or when he was appointed afresh or when the order of reinstatement was passed by the auth?rities of the University and therefore, at the instance of respondent No. 3, representation under Section 23 of the Act could not have been entertained by the Chancellor. Hence, the order impugned is illegal and without jurisdiction.