R.S.Dhavan, J. - (1.) ONE Dr. Navi Kant Jha died after having served as an Instructor at the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. This institution came to be recognised as an University under the U. P. Universities Act, 1973. Giving recognition to the long tenure of service of Dr. Navi Kant Jha the petitioner's father and further regard being had to the circumstances that his family was in dire straitened circumstances and further on compassionate grounds the University appointed him as an Instructor applying the rule of harness. There is a State Government rule known as Uttar Pradesh Sewakal Men Mrtiya Sarkari Sewakonke Ashriton ki Bharti Niyamavali, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Harness Rules of 1974). The petitioner, Lakshmi Kant Jha received an appointment as an Instructor which appointment was continued from time to time and he served the University for over four years. The appointment was discontinued. Lakshmi Kant Jha pleaded the circumstances under which he had been appointed and formally requested the University to continue his appointment as an Instructor. He drew his last salary as on March 19, 1990 a fact mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition and not denied in the counter affidavit. So far on facts there is no issue.
(2.) THE University intended to make a selection to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit. The petitioner was also one of them who applied for being considered as a Lecturer. There is an issue whether the petitioner was selected as a Lecturer. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that regard being had to the circumstances that the Instructors were automatically assigned Lectureship, the issue whether the petitioner had been selected as Lecturer or not is not irrelevant. These are the facts in the writ petition. The contention, as argued, on behalf of the respondents, by their counsel is that as the petitioner has not been selected as a Lecturer his services have been dispensed with The petitioner submits that regard being had to the circumstances, assuming without conceding that he may not have been selected as Lecturer, be cannot be dismissed from his post as an Instructor. Hereinafter, the issues begin between the petitioner and the respondents.
(3.) BEFORE the court examines the issues as to how far they are compatible with law which is applicable to this University one aspect the court has not appreciated that learned counsel who argued on behalf of the respondents submitted against the case which is on record. According to him the Executive Council has taken an incorrect decision. This incongruity will happen if a counter affidavit is avoided by a party respondent and will be filed through his clerk. This has given an impression to the court that the case submitted contradicts the Vice -Chancellor and the Executive Council both. It is also disrespect to the proceedings that while the Registrar ought to have filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Vice -Chancellor and himself, an office Assistant was deputed to do so.;