A. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The material facts leading up to it are that in the University of Lucknow two persons, one designated as Professor of Law and the other as Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, were to be appointed. The appointment was to be made by the Executive Council of the University on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. There were four candidates for the two posts including the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The Selection Committee appointed for choosing the candidates and recommending them to the Executive Council met on the 13th of December 1958 and after interviewing all the four candidates recommended to the Executive Council the petitioner for the post of Professor of Law and one Dr. V.N. Shukla for the other post. While the recommendation of the Selection Committee was being considered by the Executive Council on the 20th of December 1958 an objection was raised that the Selection Committee which had made the recommendation was not duly constituted. The point was overruled by the Vice-Chancellor who was presiding at the meeting of the Executive Council. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was accordingly accepted and the Executive Council decided to appoint the petitioner as the Professor of Law. A formal letter of appointment was thereupon issued on the 22nd of December 1958 appointing the petitioner as Professor of Law on probation for two years. The respondent No. 3 then submitted a petition dated the 22nd December 1958 to the Chancellor of the Lucknow University through the Vice-Chancellor of the University raising the question whether the Selection Committee had been duly constituted and whether the acceptance of its recommendations by the Executive Council and the resulting appointment of the petitioner as Professor of Law was valid. The question was submitted to the Chancellor for decision under Section 39 of the Lucknow University Act. After hearing the respondent No. 3 and the Vice-Chancellor of the Lucknow University the Chancellor, now the respondent No. 1, gave his decision on the 23rd of May 1959. He held that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted, that the decision of the Executive Council accepting the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the appointments made as a consequence thereof were null and void. He directed that a new Selection Committee should be constituted. The Vice-Chancellor, the respondent No. 2, was directed to implement the decision by taking immediate action. In pursuance of this decision the Registrar of the University informed the petitioner by letter dated the 3rd of June 1959 that his appointment as Professor of Law stood rescinded and that necessary action would be taken in due course to make an appointment in compliance with the decision of the Chancellor. On the 28th of July 1959 the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying:- (1) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the order of the opposite party No. 1 (Chancellor) dated 23-5-1959. (2) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus may be issued to opposite party No. 2, (Vice-Chancellor), commanding him to give effect to the resolution of the Executive Council dated 20-12-1958 appointing the petitioner as Professor of Law. (3) That a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus be issued restraining the opposite party No. 2 (Vice-Chancellor) from giving effect to the decision of the opposite party No. 1 (Chancellor) dated 23-5-1959. (4) That such other suitable writ, direction or order may be issued as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
(2.) Several grounds have been put forward in support of the petition. Some of them relate to the merit of the decision of the Chancellor and try to make out that the Selection Committee in question had in fact been properly constituted. It is also urged that the decision of the Chancellor stands vitiated as he has contravened an important principle of natural justice by deciding the matter without hearing the petitioner who was directly interested in the matter. It is further contended that the Chancellor had exceeded his jurisdiction and that no valid reference having been made to him he was never legally seized of the question for the purposes of deciding it under Section 39 of the Lucknow University Act.
(3.) The petition is opposed by all the three respondents, Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Vice-Chancellor himself, by the Registrar of the University and by the respondent No. 3.;