VINAYA CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
LAWS(ALL)-1997-2-89
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 18,1997

VINAYA CHANDRA PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.K.K.TRIVEDI - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the legality and validity of the appointment of respondent No. 6 Shri Suresh Chandra Srivastava as Vice-Chancellor of University of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the University). Initially, writ petition was filed challenging the meeting of Executive Council of the University held on 3-3-1994. However, subsequently an amendment application was filed which was allowed by this Court. Thereafter relief No. 1 was substituted by another relief challenging proceedings of the Executive Council dated 3-3-1994 in respect of item No. 50 of the agenda and also challenging the decision of respondent No. 1 dated 24/26-5-1994 by which the reference made by petitioners under Section 68 of U.P. Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was rejected as not maintainable. Prayer 1-A has been made for writ, order or direction in the nature of quo warranto questioning the election of respondent No. 5 as member of the Committee constituted under Section 12(1) of the Act. During the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 6 was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 22-6-1994, passed by respondent No. 1. Challenging the same an amendment application along with supplementary affidavit was filed which was allowed by the Bench on 4-8-1994. In the supplementary affidavit grounds Nos. 21 to 26 were sought to be added by amendment and after prayer No. 4, prayer No. 5 was sought to be added which is to the following effect : "5. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of appointment dated 22-6-1994 on the post of Vice-Chancellor issued by respondent No. 1, the Chancellor of the University of Allahabad and annexed with the supplementary affidavit and marked as Annexure 2."
(2.) The aforesaid relief has been reproduced as it has not been incorporated in the writ petition.
(3.) In this petition, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.