- (1.) As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are similar and the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner as against the very same official respondents, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner, which is an association representing the Teachers working under the respondent University. In W.P. No. 34516 of 2015, the challenge is to the nomination of the 4th respondent therein by the Senate to serve on the Search Committee for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Similarly, in W.P. No. 34517 of 2015, the challenge is to the nomination of the 4th respondent therein by the Syndicate as a member of the Search Committee for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor.
(3.) The background facts governing the writ petitions are: The post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent University is due to fall vacant on 17.01.2016 and to fill up the said vacancy, a Search Committee came to be constituted, in which, out of three members, two members were nominated, one by the Senate and the other by the Syndicate. As far as W.P. No. 34516 of 2015 is concerned, a special meeting of the Senate was held on 15.10.2015, after due notice to the members. The name of the 4th respondent in the said writ petition was proposed while the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 34516 of 2015, filed nomination for one Dr. Nirmala Prasad. However, the 4th respondent, after contest, was nominated. Similar was the procedure followed for the special meeting held on 16.10.2015 for the Syndicate members. The 4th respondent in W.P. No. 34517 of 2105 was nominated unopposed though there were two nominations seeking to nominate the very same respondent. Challenging the nomination of the respective 4th respondent, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions.;