S. R. Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a Reader in Hindu Degree College, Jamania, district Ghazipur staked his claim of being senior-most teacher in the college. His claim came to be obligated by the Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University as well as the Chancellor. Jaunpur by means of the orders impugned herein. The college is affiliated to the Purvanchal University. Jaunpur and the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 and those of the First Statutes of the Gorakhpur University are admittedly applicable to tills college.
(2.) The case has a chequered history. The minimal facts necessary to highlight the controversy involved in the case may be stated thus. The petitioner was appointed Lecturer (Mathematics) in the college on 21.2.1977. On the recommendation dated 27.5.1992 of a duly constituted selection committee, he was appointed Reader pursuant to resolution dated 18.5.1992 of the Committee of Management. The petitioner took charge of the post of the Reader by submitting an application in respect thereof to the Principal of the college on 19.5.1992. The petitioner was so promoted in accordance with the Government Order No. 91/G.I./15-11-88-14(5)/87, dated 7.1.1989. It is alleged in the petition that at the relevant time, the petitioner happened to be the only Reader in the college and on that basis, he submitted an application on 25.5.1992 to the Principal of the college staking his name to be placed at S. No. 1 in the seniority list of the teachers of the college in view of Statute 18.05 read with Statute 11.16 of the Statutes of the First Statutes of the Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur (in short 'the Gorakhpur University') which are admittedly applicable to the Purvanchal University. Jaunpur. The Principal declined the request of the petitioner to be treated as the senior-most teacher of the college by order dated 14.8.1992 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor, Purvanchal University. Jaunpur. It appears that the said appeal remained pending for a long time and feeling aggrieved by the failure of the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision within a reasonable time, the petitioner preferred a writ petition which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 25.1.1995 directing the Vice-Chancellor to decide the petitioner's appeal within a period of two months. The Vice-Chancellor vide his order dated 22.8.1995 decided the appeal in favour of the petitioner and declared him senior to other teachers of the college in view of the provisions of Statute 18.05. But on receipt of representations from respondents teachers, the Vice-Chancellor by his subsequent order dated 31.8.1995 stayed the operation of the earlier order dated 22.8.1995. However, in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, this Court by its interim order dated 24.1.1996 directed that the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 31.8.1995 would remain inoperative until further orders. The Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 27.6.1996 directed the Principal of the College who was due to retire w.e.f. 30.6.1996 to handover the charge of his post to Rama Shankar Singh, respondent No. 4.
(3.) The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed Writ Petition No. 21412 of 1996 challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 27.6.1996. This Court by a common Judgment dated 23.7.1996 finally disposed of the two writ petitions thereby relegating the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 by means of representation to the Chancellor. As an interim measure, the Court, however, directed that the order of the Vice-Chancellor in favour of Dr. Rama Shankar Singh would be confined only for the time allowable under the statute depending upon final outcome of the reference under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. 1973. Statute 13.20. It may be observed, gives a discretion to the Vice-Chancellor to direct "any teacher" to act as officiating Principal for a period of three months. Thereafter, the senior-most teacher is to officiate as Principal in case regular Principal is not appointed in the meantime. In view of the Judgment of the Court, the University by letter dated 2.8.1996 directed Sri Rama Shankar Singh to handover the charge of post of the Principal to the petitioner who would act as such until assumption of charge by regularly appointed Principal or until any order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Consequently upon said order, the petitioner. It is stated, acquired charge of the post of Principal on 3.8.1996. Rama Shankar Singh preferred a Special Leave Petition against the Judgment and order dated 23.7.1996 of the Court. It may be observed that on behalf of Sri. Rama Shankar Singh, an argument was advanced before the Supreme Court that the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 22.8.1995 was an ex parte order and, therefore, it must be set aside. On behalf of the petitioner. It was urged that the Vice-Chancellor had no Jurisdiction to review or recall his order. The Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 26.8.1996 with the direction that since the Vice-Chancellor had entertained the application of Sri Rama Shankar Singh seeking review or recall of the order dated 22.8.1995 and had also passed an order of stay dated 31.8.1995, he must dispose of the application filed by Rama Shankar Singh. The Supreme Court while disposing of the Special Leave Petition, however, made it clear that the question as to power of the Vice-Chancellor to review or recall the order dated 22.8.1995 could be "raised by Sri Anirudh Pradhan before the Vice-Chancellor himself.";