S.K. Dhaon, D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) On 10th September, 1987 the Executive Council of the Rohilkhand University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') had unanimously resolved to revert the petitioner from the post of an Assistant Registrar to that of an office Superintendent. This decision was communicated by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner by a letter dated 19th September, 1987. The said decision and the said communication are being impugned in the present petition.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University. A rejoinder affidavit too has been filed by the petitioner. The petition is thus ripe for hearing. However, the same has not been formally admitted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we are proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.
(3.) The material facts, which have emerged from the affidavits, are these. The petitioner was appointed as an office Superintendent, a non centralised service, with effect from 12th February, 1977. One Sri P.N. Saxena, an Assistant Registrar, retired from service. By a communication dated 2nd July, 1981 the Registrar, of the University informed the petitioner that as the University had not been provided by the State Government with an Assistant Registrar in place of Sri Saxena, who had retired, the Vice- Chancellor had appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Registrar on a purely temporary basis with effect from 1st July, 1981. The Registrar made it clear that the appointment was to ensure till a successor of Sri Saxena did not take over in accordance with the orders of the State Government. The Registrar also informed the petitioner that he (petitioner) was to look after the confidential section. On 22nd October, 1978 (sic) the State Government appointed one Sri L.M. Mathur as an Assistant Registrar of the University. On 2nd January, 1984 the State Government passed an order transferring Sri Mathur to the Garhwal University. In the same order the State Government directed that the petitioner was to continue as an officiating Assistant Registrar of the University in Local arrangement. On 8th April, 1987 the petitioner was suspended from service. On 14th May, 1987 he was given a chargesheet. On 22nd May, 1987 he gave a reply to the chargesheet. On 10th September, 1987 the enquiry officer submitted an interim report to the Executive Council in which he had pointed out that there were serious charges against the petitioner and the matter required further investigation. On the same day the Executive Council of the University unanimously resolved to rescind the order of suspension and revert the petitioner to the post of the Office Superintendent. The Registrar by a communication dated 19th September, 1987 informed the petitioner of the decision of the Executive Council. The Registrar also informed the petitioner that the Executive Council had resolved that for a period of six months the work and conduct of the petitioner should be watched carefully and if during that period his work and conduct were found satisfactory, then the Vice-Chancellor, if so satisfied will place the case of the petitioner before the Executive Council for being promoted as an Assistant Registrar.;