R. Dayal, J. - (1.) -The petitioner. Dr. B. G. Yadav, was appointed temporarily on the post of Dean, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Etawah under the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur vide order dated 24-12-1994 Issued by the Administrative Officer of the University on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Term No. (3) provides that the appointment shall be for two years in the first Instance from the date of joining the post which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete the above period of two years to the satisfaction of the competent authority, will render him liable to be discharged from service. This appointment was made after the post had been advertised and the petitioner had been interviewed, with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was required to join by 7th January, 1995. The petitioner sought extension of time for joining several times and extensions were accordingly granted. Last extension was granted to him vide order dated 24.3.1995 upto 25.4.1995. By the impugned order dated 29.3.1995, the Chancellor of the University cancelled the advertisement and selection made which were the bases for the appointment order dated 24.12.1994. The cancellation order was passed on the representations made by Dr. T. C. Misra, Dr. Suraj Bhan and Dr. D. K. Shukla separately, on the ground that the period of appointment had not been specified under the Statutes as contemplated under Section 17 (4) of The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel, Sri A. K. Misra, for the petitioner, and Sri A. K. Yadav for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Sri Pradeep Kumar for respondent No. 4 and Sri Ramesh Upadhyay for respondent No. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya, Kanpur has been Impleaded as respondent No. 1, Board of Management as respondent No. 2, Administrative Officer as respondent No. 3, Chancellor as respondent No. 4 and Dr. T.C. Misra as respondent No. 5. This writ petition has been filled to seek quashing of the impugned order dated 29.3.1995. The petitioner has alleged that his appointment had been made in accordance with the provisions, contained in Section 17 (4) of the Act and those of Chapter XIII of the Statutes which do not specify any period for the Dean of a Faculty and in the absence of such specification, the law applicable in the case of other employees would be applicable to the petitioner. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner of being heard.
(3.) ONE counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and another on behalf of respondent No. 5. These respondents have sought to justify the Impugned order on the ground that the order passed on 24.12.1994 was in violation of Section 17 (4) of the Act. Only two points arise for decision ; one is whether the appointment order dated 24.12.1994 was in accordance: with Section 17 (4) of the Act which admittedly governed the appointment and the other whether the impugned order dated 29.3.1995 is vitiated because of having been passed without an opportunity of hearing having been afforded to the petitioner.;