- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Sri Salig Ram Misra, Principal of Sri Sadhu Bela Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the College) was suspended by the Committee of Management of the College on 25-12-1990. The above order of suspension was, however, revoked by the Vice-Chancel lor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the University ). On 23-1-1 91 the Vice-Chancellor passed further order mentioning therein that in spite of the revocation of the suspen sion order of Sri Salig Ram Misra he will not exercise the administrative and financial powers of the Principal although he will continue to be the Principal of the college. It was further directed that the financial and administrative powers of the Principal will be dis charged by the senior most lecturer. Petitioner, being the senior most lecturer, started disharging those functions in pursuance of the above order of the Vice- Chancellor. The Management terminated the service of Sri Salig Ram Misra, but this order was disapproved by the Vice-Chancellor on 9-11-1994. The Vice-Chancellor's order was challenged before the Chancellor by means of a representation, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter afresh. The Chancellor's order was challenged by means of writ petition No. 36741 of 1994 before this Court, but the petition was dismissed.
(2.) ON 5-6-1995 the Management placed the petitioner under suspen sion. ON 1-7-1995 the petitioner was charge-sheered. The inquiry commit tee after holding inquiry submitted its report to the Management, on the basis of which on 4-12-1995 the Management resolved to terminate the services of the petitioner subject to the approval of the Vice-chancellor. It has been stated that the Vice- Chancellor has not passed any order so far. Petitioner has filed the writ petition No. 36841 of 1995 for the following reliefs : (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Head of Department/officiating Principal of the institution, (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter regarding the proposal of the committee of manage ment dated 4- 12-1994 after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, (iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. " On 2-1-1996 an order was passed by their Deputy Registrar autho rising Sri Narbadeshwar Tiwari, Held of the Vyacaran Department of the College to perform two functions, namely, (i) to forward the examination forms of students for the year 1996 ; and (ii) to disperse the salary of teachers and other employees of the College till further orders. Petitioner has challenged this order also by means of writ petition No. 3186 of 1996 in which he claimed the following reliefs : " (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2-1- 1996 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) ; (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in functioning of the petitioner as Head of Department (Vedant)/officiating Principal of the institution ; (c) o issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (d) to award the costs of the petitioner to the petitioner. " We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) IN view of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a teacher of a college cannot be dismissed or removed, reduced in rank or punished in any other manner without, approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University to which the college is affiliated. However, the order of suspension pending inquiry passed by the management is not required to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor, because sub-section (4) of Section 35 has laid down that its sub section (2) shall not apply to an order of suspension pending inquiry. Peti tioner was suspended vide order dated 5-6-1995. He has not challenged this order either before the Vice-Chancellor or before this Court. Even in these two writ petitions he has not made any prayer for getting the said order of suspension quashed. As long as the petitioner remains under suspension, he is not entitled to work as a teacher/head of the Department/officiating Principal. Therefore, the first relief claimed by the petitioner in writ petition No. 36841 of 1995 cannot be granted. How ever, second relief for direction to the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision on the proposal of the Committee of Management dated 4-12- 1995 is liable to be granted, because such matters should be decided expeditiously.;