K.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The facts of this case are that Sant Kumar Gupta respondent No. 3, was appointed as a Librarian in the petitioner-College, vide order, Annexure P. 1, on 27th of July, 1976 on probation for one year, from the date of joining Vide Annexure P. 2 dated 28th of July, 1977, his period of probation was extended by one year with effect from 2nd of Aug., 1977. His services were terminated on 11th of Aug., 1977 vide Annexure P. 3. to the petition. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal, copy of which is Annexure P. 4 with the University, respondent No. 1, on 8th of Sept., 1977, which was received in the office of the University on the following day, that is, 9th of Sept., 1977. On receipt of the appeal, a letter, copy Annexure P. 5 was addressed to the Principal of the petitioner-College on 19th of Sept., 1977, asking for the comments on the grounds of appeal submitted by respondent No. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, letter, copy Annexure P. 6 was sent on 24th of Sept., 1977 informing the Registrar, respondent No. 1, that the comments could not be submitted as the College was closed on account of autumn break upto 2nd of Oct., 1977. It was stated that the comments, however, will be sent by 10th of Oct., 1977. The University, vide Annexure P. 7 wrote back to the petitioner insisting for the submission of the comments at the earliest. The comments, copy of which is Annexure P. 8, were submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 5th of Oct., 1977. On 29th of Nov., 1977, the University intimated the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor had appointed, after considering the representation of respondent No. 3, an Arbitration Committee under Regulation 12.1 of the Regulations governing the Service and Conduct of Teachers of Non-Government affiliated Colleges, and wanted the name of the nominee of the petitioner to be intimated to the University. The petitioner was informed that the date, time and venue of the meeting of the Arbitration Committee will be intimated. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the Arbitration Committee, vide Annexure P. 10, taking the ground that it could only be appointed within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal. Since the time of thirty days after the receipt of the appeal has elapsed, the Vice-Chancellor had no authority to appoint the Arbitration Committee. Vide Annexure P. 11, the University impressed upon the petitioner to appoint its nominee within three days of the receipt of the letter. It was conveyed that the pro-Vice-Chancellor after condoning the delay had appointed the Arbitration Committee.
(2.) Indira Gandhi National College, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 in appointing the Arbitration Committee. It has taken the position that the order, copy Annexure P. 3 passed by the petitioner terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was very innocuous and did not attach any stigma to him. Since the order was of termination of services simpliciter, the Vice-Chancellor had no authority to appoint the Arbitration Committee. The powers of the Vice-Chancellor to appoint the Arbitration Committee and condonation of delay were challenged. It is also pleaded that Regulation 12.3 was mandatory and no Arbitration Committee could be appointed after the expiry of thirty days of the receipt of appeal.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 contested the petition raising the similar pleas as it did in the correspondence with the petitioner. It was averred that since there was no Vice-Chancellor in those days, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor had the powers to appoint the Committee. The contention of the petitioner about the appointment of the Committee under Regulation 12.1 was repelled on the ground that the University after examining the representation of respondent No. 3 found that mala-fides were involved in the termination of his (respondent No. 3's) service, so, the appointment of the Committee was valid. It was pleaded that Regulation 12.3 was directory and not mandatory. Respondent No. 3 also raised similar pleas.;