SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Vs. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THIS is a petition filed by the respondents in the appeal praying for modification or clarification of the judgment passed by this Court in the appeal on 29.1.2003. The modification or clarification sought for is to the extent of deleting the observations regarding the scope of Section 9(7)(ii) of the Bihar, Universities Act, now adopted by the State of Jharkhand.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the appellant -writ petitioner had been re -instated pursuant to the direction of this Court and the finding that the termination by the Vice -chancellor was bad for want of compliance with principles of natural justice. What is pleaded is that in the light of the finding that the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice, it was necessary for this Court to have pronounced on the scope of Section 9(7)(ii) of the Universities Act. According to the petitioner in this petition, (the respondent in the appeal), the interpretation placed by this Court would hamper or unnecessarily restrict the power of the Chancellor and for the purpose of the case on hand it was not necessary to have pronounced on the scope of that provision. It is also submitted that the view taken by this Court is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner -appellant submitted that as far as he is concerned, he was only concerned with the dismissal being struck down as in violation of natural justice and that the writ petitioner does not insist on an interpretation of Section 9(7) (ii) of the Act for the purpose of this case. It was, therefore, submitted that the scope of Section 9(7)(ii) of the Act may be left open for being decided in another appropriate case. The writ petitioner -appellant has no objection as such to the clarification sought for. But he was only concerned with the finding that his dismissal was bad for violation of natural justice.