- (1.) The orders dated 15-4-1999 and 12-4-1999 being Annexures 3 and 9 issued by the Registrar of the M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and Vice-Chancellor of the same University respectively are the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) Before Mr. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner opened the case Mr. P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents had took two preliminary objection. First that there was no ordinances of the University and the alleged ordinances, on which reliance has been placed to support the case of the petitioner, does not exist, so there is no question of any cause of action for the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. He secondly contended that, as pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 3, the writ petition has been sought to be moved as a public interest litigation, whereas the relief claimed on the basis of the facts pleaded it shows that it was in effect a relief personal to the petitioner No. 2 which is being sought to be obtained, therefore, on the principle on which the public interest litigation could be maintained cannot be attracted in the present case since it was the personal interest of the petitioner No. 2 which has been sought after through the purported public interest litigation. He then contended that even if the ordinances, assuming but not admitting, are in existence the orders passed by the University and by the Vice-Chancellor respectively are not contrary to the provisions contained in the alleged ordinances. In course of the submission he has elaborated his argument. He has referred to the ordinances and the State Universities Act as to the mode and method as to how ordinances are made.
(3.) Mr. R. N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that the ordinances are very much in existence and valid and the claims are within the scope and ambit of the ordinances. The said two impugned orders could not be issued since those orders are diametrically opposite to the provisions contained in the statute. He further contends that in view of the provision contained in the statute it is the Director who had undertaken all the procedure for admission and the activities by her could not have been interfered with, except in accordance with the said ordinances. With regard to other points he contends that the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has given up the cause of Public Interest Litigation, on the other hand, she has insisted that the same should be treated as a writ petition personally effecting her personal legal right. In course of his argument he has submitted a oral prayer for deletion of paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the writ petition and had argued the case as a writ petition moved by an individual both by the petitioner No. 1 as well as by petitioner No. 2 on their individual right and not a public interest litigation. Mr. Saxena however on this issue did not oppose the prayer for deletion of the said two paragraphs and he addressed the Court on merit of the case. Mr. Singh also elaborated his argument and drew my attention to various provisions of the State Universities Act as well as the ordinances.;