K.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) THESE two petitions have been consolidated and are being disposed of by a common judgment the parties being the same arid the subject matter also being similar in fact Civil Misc. Writ No. 2373 of 1966 covers the subject matter of the connected Civil Misc. Writ No. 1835 of 1966.
(2.) IN petition No. 1835 of 1966 the petitioner Dr. Vidya Niwas Misra, questioned the validity of a reasolution of the Executive Council of the University of Gorakhpur refusing to confirm him in the post of Reader in the University in the Sanskrit Department passed in the meeting of the Council held on 7th May, 1966. This petition was presented in this Court on 20th May 1966 and was admitted on that date. It appears that subsequently at a meeting of the Executive Council of the University held on 9-7-1966 a resolution Was passed refusing to extend the period of probation of the petitioner and terminating his services, This led to the filing of Civil Misc. Writ No. 2373 of 1966 which was presented before this Court and admitted on 15-7-1966. In this latter petition the former resolution of the Executive Council of the Universitv dated 7th May, 1966 has also been challenged. In effect the petition (No. 1835 of 1966) filed earlier in a way, has merged into this latter petition. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Sanskrit Department of the University in the vear 1957 and was confirmed in that post in the year 1959. Later on the post of Assistant Professor was designated as the post of Lecturer in the year 1962 and the petitioner continued on that post. in 1964 the post of Reader in the Sanskrit Department fell vacant and the University invited applications for appointment to the post of Reader by issuing advertisement. The petitioner applied in response to the advertisement and after appearing before a Slection Committee was appointed on probation for two years on the Substantive post of Reader by a resolution of the Executive Council of the University dated 18-5-1964. The period of probation of the petitioner was to expire on 17-5-1966. For the meeting of the Executive Council called on 7-5-1966 the question of confirmation of the petitioner, amongst other teachers of the University, was on the agenda. The Executive Council passed the following resolution: "The Council examined the case of Dr. V. N. Misra. Reader. Department of Sanskrit. Gorakhpur University for confirmation after the expiry of the period of probation and after careful examination, having found his work and conduct not satisfactory decided not to con firm him." It appears that the above said resolution of the Executive Council was considered,to have left fee question of the service of the petitioner in doubt on the expiry of the period of his probation, therefore, the Executive Council passed another resolution at its meeting held on 9-7-1966. The text of resolution No. 7 of the Council dated 9-7 1966 is as follows: "The Council received the report of writ petition filed by Dr. V. N. Misra in the High Court praying that the resolution No. 5(8) of the Executive Council meeting dated 7-5-1966 be quashed. The report of the Vice Chancellor on the writ petition of Dr. V. N. Misra was noted and the order of the Hon'ble High Court was read. Resolved further that as Dr. V. N. Misra's period of probation as Reader expired on 17-5-1966 and in view of the fact that the Executive Council found his work and conduct during the period of prohibition not satisfactory it is decided not to extend his period of probation and it is further resolved that his services as Reader be and are hereby terminated." It may be mentioned that the reference to the order of the High Court in the above quoted resolution was to an interim order passed by this Court pending the writ petition No. 1835 of 1966 from which it appeared that there was some doubt whether the petitioner's services with the University had terminated.
(3.) THE resolution of the Executive Council dated 7-5-66 has been challenged on the ground that as no proper notice in accordance with the regulations framed by the Executive Council was given to all the members of the Council the resolution was vitiated. Its validity has also been challenged on the ground that neither any opportunity was given to the petitioner as required by the statutes of the University to explain his conduct before the Executive Council nor was the resolution bona fide passed, it having been passed mala fide, and on extraneous considerations. The main attack on the validity of the subsequent resolution dated 9-7-1966, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, is based on the ground that no proper or reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by the Executive Council to put up his case in order to meet the grounds on the basis of which it was considered that the petitioner's work and conduct during the period of probation was not satisfactory. This resolution has also been attacked cm the ground that it was mala fide and was based on extraneous considerations.;