B.S.Chauhan, Umeshwar Pandey, JJ. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated- 18.5.2004, by which the writ petition filed by the appellants. No. 51327 of 2003 has been dismissed. Appellants claim that they were class IV employees and as per the statutory provisions applicable in the respondent University they became eligible to be considered' for a limited quota for promotion to class III. Both the appellants along with one other person were found suitable and were promoted to class III. The said promotions were not approved by the learned Vice-Chancellor, rather rejected vide order dated 10.5.2001, on the ground that the documents with regard to the selections were not available, nor there was any vacancy to be filled up in the promotional quota. It appears, that subsequently, the Vice Chancellor approved the selection however, vide order dated 10.11.2003, the learned Vice Chancellor Initiated the inquiry receiving serious complaints made by large number of employees of the University, wherein, it has been alleged that no selection had ever taken place, therefore, the question of promoting the appellants with the third employee did not arise. In spite of the enquiry not a single document could be traced to show that the selection had ever been held. The appellants were reverted to class III and thus being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the writ petition which has been dismissed. Hence this special appeal.
(2.) Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised large number of issues submitting that no enquiry had been held, appellant could not be reverted to class III without giving any opportunity of hearing. The Vice Chancellor did not have a power to review, i.e., reverting the appellants once he had accorded the approval, an hostile discrimination has been given to the appellants as the third employee promoted along with them has not been reverted. The Vice Chancellor did not have power to revert the appellants as the Registrar was their appointing authority. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed.
(3.) On the contrary Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the University has submitted that selection was never held, no document is available in the University for holding the selection ; this was a complete fraud and in case of a fraud, no enquiry is required nor any opportunity of hearing can be claimed by the person concerned. The submissions made by Dr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants that the Vice Chancellor did not have a power of review is self contradictory for the reason that the Vice Chancellor did not approve their promotions vide order dated 10.5.2001, and if the submission made by Dr. Tripathi in this regard is accepted as the learned Vice Chancellor did not have a power of review, the question of promoting all the appellants could not arise. Even if the Registrar was the appointing authority, it requires approval by the Vice Chancellor, reversion given by the learned Vice Chancellor cannot be held to be illegal, thus, appeal is liable to be dismissed.;