M.M.KUMAR. J. - (1.) (ORAL)
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that she does not press the prayer made for quashing of order dated April 12,2006 (P-9) as appeal is competent before the District Judge, against aforementioned order. However, she has raised the second prayer wherein direction has been sought to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal of the petitioner which is C.W.P. No. 7633 of 2006 [2] filed against the order dated August 7, 2003 (P-5) removing him from service. Without going into the merits of the controversy raised and expressing any opinion thereon, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be decided expeditiously at an early actual date. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 i.e. the Vice Chancellor of the Panjab University, Chandigarh to take up the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. If respondent No.1- Vice Chancellor is not the authority competent to decide the appeal, then the appeal be sent to the authority competent to decide the same. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order of be given dasti on payment of usual charges.;