SUBHASH CHANDRA SAXENA Vs. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court-On 10th September, 1987 the Executive Council of the Rohilkhand University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') had unanimously resolved to revert the petitioner from the post of an Assistant Registrar to that of an Office Superintendent. This decision was communicated by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner by a letter dated 19th September, 1987. The said decision and the said communication are being impugned in the present petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. A rejoinder affidavit too has been filed by the petitioner. The petition is thus ripe for hearing. However, the same has not been formally admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we are proceeding to dispose Of this petition finally.

(3.) ON the strength of the order dated 2nd January, 1984 passed by the State Government Sri Murlidhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been appointed by the State Government in the purported exercise of powers under sub-rule (3) of Rule 21 and the petitioner had not been merely asked to look after the office of an Assistant Registrar by way of temporary or local arrangement. For adjudicating upon this contention the crucial words in the order of 2nd January, 1984 have to be focussed on. They are :