R. R. K. Trivedi and M. C. Jain, JJ. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 12.12.1991, Annexure-15 to the writ petition by which petitioner's services were terminated on one month's notice on the ground that his services were no more required by the University, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1187 of 1992 in this Court. Learned single Judge dismissed writ petition by order dated 11.12.1997. Relevant paragraphs of the order dealing with the questions involved in the writ petition, are being reproduced below : "Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the first paragraph of the above Regulation in support of his contention that the petitioner is automatically confirmed after two years of service. However, the second paragraph of the same Regulation states that the employee will remain in probation even after the stipulated period and will not be automatically confirmed. Thus, it cannot held that the petitioner became confirmed after two years of service. Moreover, there are serious allegations against the petitioner, in the counter-affidavit where it has been stated that the petitioner was not doing his work properly and in fact was colluding with some parties against the Interest of the University. Thus, this is not a fit case for Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed."
(2.) Against the order of the learned single Judge, petitioner filed 'Special Appeal No. 1053 of 1997, which was dismissed by order dated 18.12.1997. The Division Bench though dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of learned single Judge, but gave liberty to petitioner/appellant to file review application, if so advised. The relevant paragraphs of the Division Bench judgment are being extracted below : "On perusal of the impugned judgment/order and on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any error or illegality in the interpretation of the I provisions of Regulation 11 by the learned single Judge. Then Sri S. U. Khan raised the contention that the Regulations were not enforceable in law inasmuch as it has not been adopted as Statute by the competent authority of the University. This question has not been dealt with in the Impugned judgment/order. Our attention has also not been drawn to any material on records to show that the same was raised before the learned single Judge. In the circumstances, we decline to consider the said contention raised by Sri Khan. However, the appellant may file an appropriate review petition for consideration of the matter before the learned single Judge if so advised and is permissible under law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."
(3.) In pursuance of the observations made by Division Bench, petitioner filed present application and prayed for review of order dated 11.12.1997. Learned single Judge, however, by order dated 5.8.98 directed the application to be placed before another Judge after obtaining nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Then by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, application was directed to be placed before another learned single Judge of the Court, who expressed difficulty in hearing the application for review of the order passed by another learned single Judge, who is a sitting Judge and still available. Learned single Judge was of the view that the application for review should normally be heard by the same learned Judge who passed the order and if. for some reason, he is not inclined to hear application, then Bench of two Hon'ble Judges may be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. With aforesaid observations, the record of the case was directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who by order dated 30.4.99 nominated this Bench for hearing the application. Thus, the review application has come before us.;