- (1.) THIS is an unfortunate case, in which the respondent authorities have dispensed the services of the petitioner with effect from 2-8-1992, on the alleged ground of 'abolition of post', which has been termed as non-sanction of the post by the State Government, as observed by Sri C. P. N. Singh, Chancellor of the Kanpur University.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order, dated 14-3-1984, passed by the Chancellor, Kanpur University, set out in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It appears from the impugned order dated 14-3-1984 that Sri Jagdamba Prasad Pandey,, the petitioner herein, who had put in eight years of service as Director of Physical Education, in Bhavan's Mehta Mahavidyalaya, Bharwari, Allahabad, but his services have been dispensed with by the respondent authorities by the aforesaid impugned order, on the ground of abolition of post. As such, by means of present writ petition, the peti tioner has challenged the termination of his services on the alleged plea of abolition of post. It has been stated by the petitioner in his representation, which was dealt with by Chancellor of Kanpur University, in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, that the Vice-Chancel lor of the University has not given any final decision in the matter. The petitioner has also stated that he was not given any copy of the order of Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner accordingly submitted reference under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, on the ground that since the Vice- Chancellor has given approval under Section 35 (2) of the Act for termina tion of his services, his services could not be terminated.
(3.) THE Chancellor has also taken into consideration the comments sent by the management, in which it was submitted that although the College in which the petitioner was teaching was affiliated to the Kanpur University, but the petitioner is not a teacher within the meaning of the Act, hence provisions of Section 35 (2) of the Act are not applicable in his case. According to the Chancellor the petitioner comes in the category of non-teaching staff, and, the management continued to pay its staff from its own funds till 1972, when the college was taken on grant-in-aid list by the State Government. As according to the norms of the Directorate of Higher Education, the present college which was a 'c' grade college did not qualify for sanction of the post of Director, Physical Education, the same was not sanctioned and the post had to be abolished, and the services of the peti tioner were terminated with effect from 2-8-1992. It has been further observed by the Chancellor in the aforesaid impugned order that the order, terminating the services of the petitioner was not passed by any officer, or authority of the University. No order of any of the Officer or authority of the University exists also regarding approving or disapproving the termination of the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner cannot be treated as maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, and, the petitioner is entitled to no relief from the Chancellor, under the aforesaid section.;