- (1.) BEFORE dealing with factual matrix of the three writ petitions, it would be pertinent to mention that there existed some dispute between the two set of the Management Committees, one rep resented by Akhleshwar Chaturvedi who has preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23378 of 1988 and the Managing Commit tee headed by Sri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi which was recognised by the Vice-Chan cellor by his order dated 14-8-1985 and the same was also recognised by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies Varanasi vide his orders dated 10-7-1985 and 27-2-1986. Shri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6563 against the order dated 27-2-1986 and obtained stay order. The Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the stay order of this Court set aside his earlier order dated 14-8-1985 by means of his order dated 12-9-1985.
(2.) THE Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7116 of 1986 before this Court assailing the selection of the principal. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3rd December, 1987 on the ground of availability of alter native remedy under Section 68 of the Act. Thereafter a representation under Section 68 of the State Universities Act was preferred on behalf of the Committee of Management of institution in question by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi claiming himself to be the Manager of the said Committee of Management. The controversy center around on the question of appointment of the Prin cipal of Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Deoria. One Shri Bansraj Tripathi admittedly retired on 30th June, 1984 who was Principal of the said Col lege. Although there is a controversy as to who after him functioned as a Principal of the said Institution but according to Shri Ranjit Tripathi, the respondent No. 5 who was working as Principal, Sri S.M. Tripathi was validly elected as Manager of the In stitution and he still holds the office of the Manager. The Committee of Management selected Sri Ranjit Tripathi as Principal on 8- 12-1985, thereafter the said selection was approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University Varanasi on 30th October, 1986. First of all it was asserted in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23378 of 1988 that the selection committee did not follow the procedure prescribed under the amended statute 11.16 (1). The said Statute came into force on 30th October, 1985 because vacancy for the selection of the post of Principal was advertised on 16-11-1984 and the date for interview was fixed on 2-2-1985. On that date interview could not take place for the reason that one Shri Sheo Shanker Tiwari claiming himself to be Officiating Principal raised certain ob jections and ultimately the interview took place on 8-12-1985. According to Shri S.M. Tripathi, he was the Manager of the Institution and was holding the office of the Manager. The appointment of the Principal was made as per provisions of statute 11.16 (1) and was approved by the Vice-Chancellor.
(3.) IT is well settled that the process of selection starts from the date of advertise ment. The advertisement was issued on 16-11- 1984 much before the amended Statute 11.16 (1) which came into force from 30-10-1985 hence the contention that the selection of Sri S.M. Tripathi as Principal was bad, in view of the amended Statute 11.16 (1) is totally misconceived. According to the University, the Managing Committee headed by Shri Akhlesh-war Chaturvedi was not recognised by the University under the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the Act and clause 12.07 (b) of the statutes. Categorical statement was made by the University that the Managing Com mittee headed by Shri Shriniwas Mani Tripathi was legally constituted Managing Committee. On a representation preferred under Section 68, which was a belated one, the Chancellor dealt with aspect of the matter and rightly expressed an opinion that by means of the present writ petition bearing No. 23378 of 1986 Shri Akhlesh-war Chaturvedi wanted to raise the dis pute about the Managing Committee. In-spite of the fact that the Chancellor by means of his order dated 6th June, 1986 had directed the Committee of Manage ment headed by Sri Akhleshwar Chatur vedi to seek his remedy before the Regional Deputy Director Education. The Chancellor further expressed opinion that the Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi has no locus standi to assail the appointment of the Principal because he was not an aggrieved person in accordance with Section 68 (b) of the State Universities Act. Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi was not an ap plicant for the post of the Principal. No prejudice would have been caused to him due to appointment of Sri Ranjit Tripathi as a Principal. Actually, before the Chan cellor persistent endeavor of Sri Akhlesh war Chaturvedi was to get his claim as the Manager of the Committee of Manage ment adjudicated upon. The Chancellor refused to accept the contention of Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi for the reason that representation before him under Sec tion 68 was limited in its scope, meaning thereby as to whether the appointment, selection and approval of Shri Ranjit Tripathi, the respondent No. 6, was proper or not and in those collateral proceedings he could not have decided those questions. In view of the aforesaid reason the Chan cellor rejected the representation of the Committee of Management headed by Shri Akhleshwar Chaturvedi.;