- (1.) S. H. A. Raza, J. In the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya & Ors. , AIR 1987 SC 2186, it has already been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Vice-Chancellor does not possess a power to review his earlier order. That was the solitary example where the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy, which was available by making a representation to the Chancellor.
(2.) IN the present case the Vice-Chan cellor recognised the Committee of Management and there after reviewed his order and cancelled the recognition. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the Vice-Chancel lor is nonest in as much as the Committee of Management was not given a oppor tunity to show cause. This contention is rebutted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the Committee of Management filed an objec tion before the Vice- Chancellor. I need not delve into that issue because I am of the view that the Vice-Chancellor has committed an error ap parent on the face of the record in review ing his earlier order. The respondents had a remedy to file a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act against the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor recognising the Committee of Management, but in stead they approached the Vice-Chancel lor to review the order, which the Vice-Chancellor could not do.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor reviewing his earlier order is non est and deserves to be set aside. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-12-1998 passed by the Vice-Chancellor is issued.;