- (1.) THE appointment of the Principal of Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth Degree College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'college') which is affiliated to the Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'university') is the core issue involved in all these petitions and, therefore, they have been heard together.
(2.) THE order dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Vice- Chancellor of University and the order dated 9th June, 2004 passed by the Chancellor of the University have been impugned in Writ Petition No. 76322 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 46551 of 2004 which have been filed by Dr. (Smt.) Shakti Pandey (hereinafter referred to as 'dr. Pandey') and the Committee of Management of the College respectively. The Vice-Chancellor of the University by the order dated 27th February, 2004 accepted the claim of Dr. (Smt.) Rajni Tripathi (hereinafter referred to as 'dr. Tripathi') that she had withdrawn her resignation on 28th September, 2003 prior to its acceptance and, therefore, directed the Management of the College to forthwith handover the charge of the Principal of the College to her. The Chancellor of the University by the order dated 9th June, 2004 rejected the representations filed by the Committee of Management of the College as well as Dr. Pandey under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'university Act') for quashing the aforesaid order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Writ Petition No. 46933 of 2004 has been filed by Dr. Tripathi for a direction upon the respondents to ensure the compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of the University. An advertisement No. 25 was issued by the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'commission') for selection of the Principals of a number of Degree Colleges including the aforesaid College under the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'commission Act' ). Dr. Pandey and Dr. Tripathi alongwith a number of other candidates submitted applications for appointment as Principal of the Degree Colleges and thereafter the Commission sent the list dated 18th April, 2001 to the Director of Education (Higher Education) (hereinafter referred to as the 'director') by the letter dated 30th April, 2001 recommending the names of candidates found to be most suitable in order of merit. The Director, by the communication dated 31st August, 2002, recommended the name of Dr. Tripathi as the Principal of the College under Section 13 (3) of the Commission Act and thereafter Dr. Tripathi joined the College on 2nd September, 2002. On 27th September, 2003 at about 7. 30 p. m. a resignation letter was submitted by Dr. Tripathi to the Committee of Management. It was mentioned that she was submitting the resignation letter after accepting the decision taken that day by the Committee of Management and that she wanted to proceed to her home district. There is a serious dispute about the facts subsequent to the submission of the aforesaid resignation letter on 27th September, 2003. The case of Dr. Tripathi is that she submitted a letter to the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College on 28th September, 2006 for withdrawal of the resignation letter, while the case of the Committee of Management of the College is that no such letter was submitted by her for withdrawal of the resignation and that the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 11th October, 2003 also accepted the resignation submitted by her. The Director thereafter by the communication dated 18th November, 2003 recommended the name of Dr. Pandey from the list sent by the Commission on 30th April, 2001 for appointment as the Principal of the College against the vacancy that had arisen in the College on account of the resignation submitted by Dr. Tripathi. On the basis of the said letter Dr. Pandey joined the College as Principal on the same date.
(3.) THIS resolution of the Committee of Management for accepting the resignation was challenged by Dr. Tripathi by filing Writ Petition No. 52674 of 2003 and a direction was also sought to allow her to work as the Principal of the College. The said petition was ultimately disposed of on 16th December, 2003 with a direction that Dr. Tripathi may approach the appropriate forum for getting the controversy resolved as to whether she had withdrawn her resignation before acceptance or not decided. Dr. Tripathi then filed a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University who after hearing the Committee of Management of the College and Dr. Tripathi gave directions to the Committee of Management by the order dated 27th February, 2004 to handover the charge of the Principal of the College to Dr. Tripathi at the earliest. In the said order, the Vice-Chancellor recorded a finding of fact that the resignation dated 27th September, 2003 was obtained by the Manager late in the night at 7. 30 p. m. under pressure and that the said resignation was withdrawn by the petitioner on 28th September, 2003 prior to its acceptance. The Committee of Management of the College as well as Dr. Pandey filed a representation to the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act. The said representations were rejected by the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 9th June, 2004. In respect of the representation filed by Dr. Pandey, the Chancellor observed that the representation itself was not maintainable as she was not an aggrieved person. The representation filed by the Committee of Management of the College was also rejected on merits after affirming the findings recorded by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The Committee of Management of the College filed Writ Petition No. 46551 of 2004 to challenge the orders passed by the Vice- Chancellor and Chancellor of the University. Dr. Pandey also filed Original Suit No. 594 of 2004 for a declaration that the letter of withdrawal dated 28th September, 2003 was a forged and fabricated document and that the orders passed by the Vice- Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University were null and void and not binding upon her. On 14th October, 2004 the Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of Dr. Pandey that she should be allowed to carry on her duties as Principal of the College till her appointment was cancelled by the competent authority. Feeling aggrieved by the said injunction order, Dr. Tripathi filed Misc. Appeal but during the pendency of the appeal she also filed Writ Petition No. 50040 of 2004 in this Court. The Writ Petition was ultimately allowed and the injunction order dated 14th October, 2004 was vacated. The order passed by the High Court was challenged by Dr. Pandey before the Supreme Court which initially directed the parties to maintain status quo. However, during the pendeny of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court Dr. Pandey was advised that the validity of the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University cannot be challenged in a suit and, therefore, Dr. Pandey filed Writ Petition No. 76322 of 2005 for challenging the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University.;