- (1.) THE petitioner feels aggrieved by an order dated 6-1-1988, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereunder, pursuant to the order dated 27-11-1987 he was to be retired w. e. f. 28-1-1988 on attaining the age of superannuation, i. e. 60 years. THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was to attain the age of super annuation on 29-1-1988. However, in view of the proviso to Statute 21. 7 of the Statutes of the University concerned which stipulated that in case the date of superannuation of a teacher does not fall on June 30, the teacher shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, i. e. , June 30, following and he will be treated on re-employment from the date immediately following the date of his superannuation till June 30 follow ing, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service as on re-employment during the period 30-1-1988 to 30-8-1988 but before the end of the aforesaid period, the proviso to Statute 21. 7 was deleted vide the order of Chancellor dated 27-11-1987 with the result the petitioner ceased to hold any right to continue in service till the end of the academic session, i. e. , 30th June, 1988. Consequently, superseding the order dated 2-9-1987, continuing the peti tioner in service till 30-6-1988, the impugned order was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Chancellor had no jurisdiction to delete the proviso to Statute 21. 7 so as to defeat the right of the petitioner to continue in service till the end of the session. He has urged that the provisions contained in Section 29 (6) of the U. P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidhyala Adiniyam, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only vests the Kuladhipati with the jurisdiction to either approve or disapprove or remit for further consideration any proposed addition or amendment or repeal of a Statute, but he cannot, himself direct for any amendment or repeal. In the present case, it is pointed out that the Kuladhipati himself has exercised the jurisdiction, which really vests in the Board of Manage ment, which was not permissible. It has been urged that the Academic Council itself had passed a resolution number 652 dated 14-3-1988 indicat ing that the deletion of the proviso below Statute 21. 7 by the Kuladhipati was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 (6) of the Act and the said order was detrimental to the interest of the teachers.
(3.) IN the aforesaid view of the matter, in the absence of any decision of the Board contemplated under Section 29 (2) of the Act and the proposal of the Academic Council, in regard to the deletion of the proviso to Statute 21. 7, the Kuladhipati could not be deemed to have any jurisdiction to delete the proviso in question. The occasion to exercise the jurisdiction by the Kuladhipati, as contemplated under Section 29 (6) of the Act could arise only after the decision had been taken by the Board. In the instant case, no such decision was ever taken. Therefore, the question of according previous approval contemplated under Section 29 (6) of the Act did not arise. The provision contained in Section 29 (6), it seems to us, provides for previous approval of the Kuladhipati, indicating thereby that the decision of the Board could not come into operation, or become effective so long as the previous approval, as contemplated under Section 29 (6) of the Act was not granted. Power of granting previous approval cannot be equated with the power to amend or alter the Statute.;