Aran Tandon, J. - (1.) IN paragraph 3 of the present writ petition it has been stated that one Shyam Krishna Lal had proceeded on long leave in the year 1989 and, therefore, the Committee of Management decided to make appointment against the leave vacancy. The vacancy was advertised and applications were invited. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement (paragraph 4 to the present writ petition) . IN paragraph 13 it has been stated that the petitioner has been appointed in accordance with the provisions of para 11.21 of the First Statutes of the Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi.
(2.) THE Manager of the institution however forwarded a letter to the petitioner stating that it is now proposed to make ad-hoc appointment in accordance with the provisions of para 11.21 of the First Statutes of the University, therefore, the services of the petitioner are being brought to an end. It is against this order of the Manager dated 20.11.1990 that the present writ petition has been filed. On record is an order of the University dated 31.7.1990 whereby the appointment has been directed to be made in accordance with the provisions of para 11.21 of the First Statutes of the University by the Management afresh. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on one short ground alone that the consequential action taken by the Manager, could not be challenged without challenging the main order of the University.
(3.) HOWEVER, the petitioner on the basis of the statement made in paragraph 3, 4 and 13 of the present writ petition, misled the Court to believe that the appointment of the petitioner was earlier made in accordance with the provisions of para 11.21 of the First Statutes of the University and on that basis succeeded in contending that an ad-hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another. This resulted in an interim order dated 26.11.1990 directing payment of salary to the petitioner. This has continued for nearly 20 years together. During this period the petitioner did not take any steps to serve the University. It was only when the Court on 4.4.2011 noticed the aforesaid fact directed the Registry of the High Court to serve a notice upon the University with a further direction upon the University to produce the original records available qua selection/appointment of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. From the counter affidavit it is apparent that it has been stated in paragraph 7 that approval was granted to the appointment of the petitioner under the provisions of para 11.21 of the First Statutes of the University (Reference Annexure-3 to the writ petition).;