- (1.) Heard Mr.Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.B.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the Chancellor of the Lucknow University.
(2.) The petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer in Lucknow University was challenged before the Chancellor of the University by Dr.Prashant Pandey and others. The Chancellor of the University had exercised his power under Section 68 of the U.P.State Universities Act 1973 and cancelled the petitioner's appointment for want of qualification. Aggrieved petitioner had instituted a writ petition being writ petition No.876 (SB) of 2008 before this Court. This Court having found no error in the order of Chancellor dismissed the writ petition. Since several important facts were escaped from consideration by this Court the petitioner filed a review application before this Court to review its order dated 4.9.2008 passed in writ petition No.876 (SB) of 2008.
(3.) Since the dual standards were adopted in consideration of eligibility criteria of the candidates as also 100 appointments made on the basis of same qualification had been saved by the University, this Court felt it appropriate to issue direction to the Chancellor of the University to re-consider the case in accordance with law. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Chancellor of the University, who at the outset considered the question of maintainability of the case for its rehearing in exercise of power provided under Section 68 of the Act and expressed the opinion that since neither Section 68 of the Act nor any other provision of the Act nor the statutes made thereunder confer any power of review upon the Chancellor to review or recall his order passed earlier on merits, therefore, the said representation of the applicant is legally not maintainable. The Chancellor also considered the petitioner's locus to claim the survival of her appointment and observed:- "As regards the sweeping allegations made by the applicant against all the appointments made by the University since 2003 and her request for legal scrutiny of all such appointments, it is submitted that the applicant cannot be said to be an aggrieved person against all such other appointments since 2003 as she has no where stated that she had applied for her selection and appointment against any other such post except the post of Lecturer, Applied Economics. The applicant's aforesaid request is, therefore, also not maintainable.";