BALBIR SINGH Vs. G D TAPASE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that Shri Hardwari Lal respondent No. 2 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the University) on 27th October, 1977 for a period of three years by the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, exercising the powers under statute 4(6) of the First Statutes of the University contained in the Schedule to the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a promise that his term would be renewed for a similar period. The Chancellor did not renew the term as promised by him. Therefore, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 3658 of 1980 for mandamus that the Chancellor be directed to renew the second term inter alia on the ground of promissory estoppel. The Court accepted the writ petition on 16th September, 1981 on the ground that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was attracted and directed the Chancellor to renew the term of the respondent for a period of three years with effect from 27th October, 1980. The judgment is reported as Hardwari Lal v. G. D. Tapase, AIR 1982 Punj and Har 439 (hereinafter referred to as the Full Bench judgment).

(2.) The Chancellor and the State Government preferred a special leave petition (S.L.P. No. 7941 of 1981) in the Supreme Court of India and also prayed for staying the operation of the judgment. On 30th September, 1981, the Court granted the stay as prayed for subject to the condition that the respondent would be entitled to the use of his residence, car and Personal Assistant and that he would be paid the entire salary and allowances till the end of September, 1981 within a period of one month. The Registrar of the University was directed to carry on day to day administrative work of the University. In pursuance of the order the Registrar started discharging the functions of the Vice-Chancellor.

(3.) On 4th June, 1982, a compromise was arrived at between the respondent on the one hand and the Chancellor and the State Government on the other according to which it was agreed that the respondent would assume the office of the Vice-Chancellor immediately after the issuance of notification in terms of the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The Supreme Court, in view of the compromise between the parties, allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal. In terms of the compromise, a notification dated 7th June, 1982 was issued by the Chancellor appointing the respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the University and he started functioning as such with effect from 8th June, 1982. His term, according to the notification, was to expire on 27th October, 1983.