M.Katju - (1.) THIS petition and connected writ petition No. 2095 of 1989 are being disposed of together since they involve common question of law and facts,
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In writ petition No. 2804 of 1989 the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 1-12-84 as a temporary lecturer in Geography in the leave vacancy of Smt. K. R. Jain, Digambar Jain College, Baraut, Meerut and he worked till 31-11-85 as such From 1-12-85 the petitioner worked as Temporary Lecturer in Geography in the said college in the leave vacancy of Dr. R. C. Pandey and this appointment has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor by the order dated 14-3-86, upto 31-5-86. True copy of the approval order dated 14-3-86 is Annexure 1 to this writ petition. Thereafter Dr. R. and Pandey was appointed officiating Principal of the college and as such the post of Lecturer in Geography fell vacant and the petitioner continued working on the post. Subsequently Dr. R. C. Pandey was made the permanent Principal, and as such a substantive vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Geography occurred and the petitioner continued working against that post and was paid salary. In this connection a certificate of the Principal of the college dated 21-1-89 is Annexure-2 to this writ petition. This certificate has given the full facts and it shows that the petitioner has been working continuously since 1-12-84. Since the petitioner's term was to expire on 31-1-88. on 30-1-88 the Principal informed the university and the Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 1-2-88 again approving of petitioner's appointment as temporary adhoc lecturer in Geography in the college against the leave vacancy of Sri A, N. Matbur. True copy of the letter of the Vice-Chancellor dated 1-2-88 is Annexure 3 to this petition. Accordingly the petitioner was given a letter appointing him as Lecturer in Geography for a period of three months against the leave vacancy of Shri A. N. Mathur. True copy of the said order dated 1-2-88 is Annexure 4 to this petition. The petitioner protested against this order through a representation dated 2-2-88. In this representation the petitioner stated that he had worked against the substantive vacancy of Dr, R. C. Pandey but he had been wrongly appointed against the leave vacancy of Shri A. N. Mathur. The petitioner prayed that his appointment against the substantive vacancy of Dr. R. C. Pandey be restored. On this representation the President of the College vide order dated 11 4-88 (Annexure-5) restored the petitioner's appointment against the vacancy of Dr. R. C. Pandey and directed that Dr. H. C. Rai be appointed against the vacancy of Shri A. N. Mathur with retrospective effect. It is relevant to note that this order dated 11-4-88 was passed on the written consent of Dr. H. C. Rai which is Annexure 5 to this writ petition On 11-4-88 the Principal of the college sent information of the restoration of the petitioner's appointment against the vacancy of Dr. R. C. Pandey to the University vide letter dated 11-4-88 (Annexure 7) and the Deputy Registrar of the University replied that the University have no concern with the matter of restoration vide Annexure 8. On 29-4-88 the management of the college wrote to the Registrar of the University about the ensuing completion of the term of the petitioner and Dr. H. C. Rai and requested for extention of their terms, vide letter dated 29-4-88 (Annexure 9) By his order dated 4-5-88 the Vice-Chancellor approved the extension of both these appointments vide Annexure 10. It appears that on 8-11-88 the Director of Higher Education Service Commission sent a letter to the college and asked the principal to explain in what circumstances the petitioner was appointed against the post of Dr. R. C. Pandey True copy of this letter dated 8-11-88 is Annexure-11 On 23-11-88, the Principal sent reply to the said letter stating that the petitioner's appointment was with the written consent of Dr. H. C. Rai and the approval of the University. True copy of the reply dated 23-11-88 is Annexure 12 to this petition. By the impugned order dated 18-1-89 the Director of Higher Education has directed that Dr. H. C. Rai will continue on the substantive vacancy of Dr R. C. Pandey and the petitioner will continue against the post of A. N. Mathur. A true copy of the order dated 18-1-89 is Annexure 13 to this petition Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. Moreover, it is contended that since respondent no. 3 had given his consent to the petitioner's appointment against the substantive post of Dr. R. C. Pandey it was not open for the Director to pass the impugned order. A counter affidavit has been filed by Dr. H. C. Rai and in para 9 of the same it has been alleged that his alleged consent is a forged and procured document. It is also alleged that the petitioner got forged consent prepared by pressure and under influence and when the respondent came to know about it he made a complaint to the Principal, Vice-Chancellor and the other concerned authorities. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed and in para 4 of the same the allegation of the respondent no. 3 in para 9 has been denied and ft was reiterated that the respondent no. 3 gave his consent and thereupon the management of the college restored the appointment of the petitioner against the substantive vacancy of Dr. R. C. Pandey.;