R.R.K. Trivedi and M.C. Jain, JJ. - (1.) In this petition, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. Learned counsel have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) Initially petitioner claimed relief against the order dated 13.9.1994, passed by respondent No. 2 and also for a direction to respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of lecturer in Physics in Agra University and further not to confirm respondent No. 4 on the post of lecturer in Physics. However, petitioner was directed by order dated 10.4.1996 to approach the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), within a week for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. The reference was directed to be decided within a month by the Chancellor. However, the writ petition was kept pending. The Chancellor by order dated 11.1.1997 decided the reference under Section 68 of the Act. By this order, he set aside the order dated 13.9.1994 and directed the executive council of the University to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment under Section 31 (3) (c) of the Act. The Chancellor, however, refused the request of the petitioner to set aside the appointment of respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Application No. 5086 of 1997 along with a supplementary affidavit and prayed for a further relief for quashing the order of the Chancellor dated 11.1.1997 to the extent the matter has been decided against him. The application has been allowed directing the supplementary affidavit filed along with the application to be treated as part of the writ petition.
(3.) In order to appreciate the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to narrate in brief the facts giving rise to this writ petition. Petitioner was appointed as lecturer in subject Physics in Agra University by order dated 31.8.1989 for the period 1.8.1989 to 30.6,1990 on a fixed salary of Rs. 1,500 per month. This appointment was further extended from time to time upto 31.7.1991. By order dated 24.7.1991, the appointment of petitioner was directed to be treated as part time lecturer in the Department of Physics and it was to continue upto 31.1.1992. While the petitioner was serving on the basis of the aforesaid appointment. Section 31 of the Act was amended and Clause (c) was inserted in sub-section (3) of Section 31 by U. P. Act No. 1 of 1992 with effect from 22.11.1991. The newly added Clause (c) to sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act provided that any teacher of the University who was appointed as Lecturer on or before June 30, 1991, without reference to the Selection Committee by way of short-term arrangement in accordance with the provisions for, the time being in force for such appointment, may be given substantive appointment by the executive council, if any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and grade in the same department is available on November 22, 1991--if such teacher (i) is serving as such on November 22, 1991 continuously since such initial appointment by way of short-term arrangement ; (ii) possessed on November 22, 1991 the qualifications required for regular appointment to the post under the provisions of relevant Statutes in force on the date of initial appointment ; (iii) has been found suitable for regular appointment by the executive council. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in Section 31 (3) (c) of the Act, the petitioner claimed his regularisation on the post on the basis of the service already rendered. As no action was taken by the University, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1578 of 1992 on 13.1.1992. This petition was disposed of finally by Division Bench with direction to respondent University to consider claim of petitioner for regulaisatlon of service as provided under Section 31 (3) (c) of the Act. Against the order of the Division Bench, respondents approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition numbered as 13181 of 1992, 13550 of 1992, 13837 of 1992, 13923 of 1992 (Civil Appeals Nos. 217 to 220 of 1993). Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 20.1.1993 allowed the aforesaid appeals, set aside the order of the Division Bench dated 19.5.1992 and remitted the matter to the High Court for rehearing in accordance with law. While disposing of the aforesaid appeals. Hon'ble Supreme Court gave the following direction while refusing the prayer for a direction to maintain status quo during pendency of the writ petition : "Learned counsel for the respondents have prayed for maintenance of status quo. We do not agree. We, however, make it clear that whatever steps are taken hereafter, shall be subject to the final result in the main case and if the respondents are desirous of applying and competing with other applicants for the post in question, they will be doing so without prejudice to their rights in the present cases. As suggested on behalf of the respondents the cases are to be taken up and disposed of expeditiously.";