Raj Mani Chauhan, J. - (1.) BY this review petition Dr. Usha Sharma-the petitioner in the Writ Petition has sought review of our judgment and order dated 8.8.2008, by which we had dismissed the writ petition both on the grounds that after dismissal of her Writ Petitions and the Special Leave Petitions on 06.3.1998 nothing had survived to be considered and decided by the Chancellor in her representation. The Chancellor had observed that in the matter of termination of petitioner's services the High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court had considered the matter and had passed final orders and that nothing survives to be decided, however, if something survives after the order of the Supreme Court and some proceedings are pending or are still require to be taken at this stage, the same may be immediately followed and concluded as the matter is pending since a long period of time. We found that the petitioner had approached the Court in the second round of litigation after four years without giving good and sufficient explanation for the laches.
(2.) DR. Usha Sharma requested and was heard in person at length on 13.2.2009 and thereafter on 20.3.2009. She has also filed written arguments in support of her review petition. In order to appreciate the grounds taken in the review petition, it is necessary to briefly state the facts as follows:- Dr. Usha Sharma the review petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in Zoology in the year 1971 in the Department of Zoology in Janta Mahavidyalaya Ajitmal Etawah-a college affiliated to Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. The petitioner is Ph.D in Zoology and was qualified and eligible for teaching in post graduate college. In the year 1988, the University Grants Commission, after approval taken from the management of the College, sanctioned her field work project relating to water pollution. The Principal of the College had approved the project of the University Grants Commission on 11.4.1988. The petitioner worked on the project under the directions of the Director, National Environmental Research Institute vide his letter dated 26.4.1988. When the petitioner was working on the project the College appointed one Shri Yogesh Babu on the post held by the petitioner in the College without taking sanction from the State Government. The Principal of the College had illegally held that she was absent; withheld her salary and terminated her services behind her back, without giving her any opportunity of hearing and without following the provisions of Section 35 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, which provides for approval of the Vice Chancellor for terminating the services of a teacher. In paragraph-4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner's services were illegally terminated, by the management of the College on 2.5.1990, and the order was wholly illegally approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University. Against the order of termination the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 13817 of 1991. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 5.12.1994. A Review Petition was also filed which was also dismissed. The petitioner challenged both the orders of the High Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 16758/1996 and 14974 of 1996. On 28.11.1997 the Supreme Court passed an order as follows:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner who is present in the court states that in order to settle the dispute the petitioner would be willing to give up her claim of back wages subject to the following conditions:- i. She will be reinstated in service with continuity of service; ii. During the disputed period of alleged unauthorised absence she would not claim any back wages; and iii. For the period from the date of removal till the actual reinstatement she is prepared to receive 50% of the back wages payable to her in the running time scale. To this proposal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that he is agreeable but his only request was that he may be given some time to find out that if anyone is appointed against the petitioner during this period. Dr. Ghatote, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-state also sought some time to take instructions from the State Government about the liability of the State to pay the requisite amount for releasing the arrears of salary of the petitioner. To be placed in the last week of January, 1998." The Supreme Court thereafter on 6.3.1998 dismissed both the Special Leave Petitions by an order which reads as follows:- "We heard on these special leave petitions at length. We are unable to find any case for interference. The special leave petitions are dismissed. I.A. No. 3/98 for intervention In view of dismissal of the special leave petitions, no orders are necessary on this I.A."
(3.) IT is contended in paragraph-8 of the writ petition and has been reiterated in the grounds taken in the review petition that the Director of Higher Education had passed an order on 6.9.1990, which was not placed before the Apex Court. Since the order was by way of internal correspondence between the State and the College, the petitioner was not able to obtain a copy at any point of time during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court or the Apex Court. The petitioner, however, managed to get a copy of the order through some clerk in the office of the College in the month of September/October, 2003 and gave a legal notice on 6.9.1990 to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government through her counsel. IT is contended that in this order dated 6.9.1990 of the Director of Higher Education, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, sanction was given to the appointments of three lecturers including the petitioner. A note appended to the order stated that if the vacancy is being caused on the termination of services of any teacher, it may be made clear in the appointment order that if termination of the said appointee is set aside by the Chancellor or the High Court, the services of the new appointee shall be terminated automatically. It is stated that the State Government, in response to the legal notice, issued directions on 20.11.2003 to the Director, Higher Education, U.P. Lucknow, to take necessary steps for payment of the arrears of the petitioner and to inform the State Government. By another letter dated 16.12.2003 similar directions were issued to the Director of Higher Education, with a copy to the counsel for the petitioner.;