S.N. Sahay, J. - (1.) In view of the report of the Dean, College of Agriculture dated 25th January, 1989 on the note of Professor and Head of Department of Entomology dated 13th January, 1989, the Vice-Chancellor of the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause 9(i) of Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the said University appointed the petitioner Dr. (Smt.) Rini Sen as Assistant Professor (Entomology) in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 in the Department of Entomology in temporary capacity on ad hoc basis for a period of six months only. It was clearly provided in the order of appointment dated 28th January, 1989 that thereafter her services will stand terminated automatically. The petitioner filed this writ petition for regularisation of her services. An interim order dated 25th July, 1989 was passed in her favour in the following terms:- "Meanwhile the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till the petitioner's case is considered by the Board of Management. The right of the petitioner to continue in the service shall be subject to the decision of the Board."
(2.) In pursuance of the above-mentioned directions, the matter has considered by the Board of Management on 30th June, 1990. The Board decided to terminate the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner An order of termination dated 1st July, 1990 was accordingly issued by the Vice-Chancellor, in which it was mentioned that the Board had considered the matter in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court and had decided to terminate the services of the petitioner and accordingly her services are being terminated with immediate effect.
(3.) Thereafter the petitioner assailed the said order of termination by filing a Writ Petition No 1730 of 1990 at Allahabad The said writ petition was dismissed summarily on 14th February, 1991 While dismissing the writ petition, the Bench took note of the fact that this writ petition was pending at Lucknow and the matter has been raised here also. The Division Bench accordingly observed that it would be open to the petitioner to assail the order of termination by applying for amendment of the writ petition. The petitioner moved an application for amendment which was allowed and now the petitioner has also challenged the said termination order.;