Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J - (1.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Pandey, teamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Sri Ved Vyas Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order of the Manager of the institution dated 20th November, 1990 enclosed as Annexure-8 to the present writ petition. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: Shree Ram Chandra Sanskrit Pathshala, Mugara Badshahpur, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution) is a recognised Sanskrit Pathshala affiliated to Dr. Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the 'University'). One Shyam Krishna Lal, who was working as permanent assistant teacher of the institution, proceeded on leave. This according to the petitioner resulted in vacancy being caused. Petitioner, who was possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification, made an application and was appointed. Papers pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner were forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor of the University for his approval. Approval is stated to have granted to the appointment on 30th January, 1990. Copy of the approval letter has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the present writ petition. Petitioner claims to have continued to work as Lecturer in the institution since then. In paragraph-11 of the present writ petition, it has been stated that the approval for appointment of the petitioner was given by the Vice-Chancellor of the University after permission was granted by the Head of the Department of Literature of the University. In paragraph-13 of the present writ petition it has been stated as follows: "That it is relevant to state here that the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with the provisions of para 11.21 of First Statutes of the Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi."
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, though his appointment was earlier approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the Registrar of the University wrote a letter to the Committee of Management of the institution on 31st July, 1990, asking it to make regular appointment in accordance with the provisions of statute 11.21 of the First Statutes of the University. However, no order was passed in respect of his continuance or otherwise by the University. It is stated that the said letter had been issued under misconception. On that basis, the Manager of the institution issued the impugned order dated 20th November, 1990, terminating the appointment of the petitioner. It has been stated that the order dated 20th November, 1990, in response to the letter of the Registrar of the University dated 31st July, 1990 was illegal and misconceived. The order impugned passed by the Manager of the institution records that the appointment of the petitioner was made under statute 11.21 and that the Committee of Management shall now proceed to make fresh ad hoc appointment in the leave vacancy and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is being put to an end.;