Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) SHRI Hardwari Lal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of suspension passed against him, dated 21st of September, 1979 (copy Annexure P/9 to the petition) and the order dated 21st of September, 1979 (copy Annexure P/20 to the petition) by which Shri Chander Singh, I.A.S. Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, was appointed Vice -Chancellor, temporarily. The Petitioner has also prayed that the Chancellor (Respondent No. 1) be restrained from accepting any demand from the State Government or the Union Government for any kind of action against the Petitioner, contrary to the provisions of the University Act and the terms and conditions of the Petitioner's appointment as Vice -Chancellor.
(2.) IN order to understand the contentions of the Petitioner, it would be necessary to recapitulate certain salient features of the case which read as under: The Petitioner was appointed Vice -Chancellor of the Maha -rishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, - -vide notification dated 26th of October, 1977 for a period of three years. His terms and conditions of appointment were issued separately. The Petitioner continues to be the Vice -Chancellor. It appears that for quite some time past, there has been considerable unrest in the University Campus. The reason assigned by the Petitioner is unnecessary interference from the Government and its Ministers. Be that at it may, the fact remains that there has been unrest in the University Campus.
(3.) ON 11th of September, 1979, a news -item appeared in 'The Tribune' to the effect that the Chief Minister of Haryana had said in a meeting at Kosli that the Petitioner's refusal to go on leave left him with no option but to suspend him so that normalcy could be restored. Apprehending some notice, the Petitioner, on the basis of the said news -item, filed C.P.W. No. 3228 of 1979. Notice of motion was issued in that petition for 17th of September, 1979, Separate written statements were filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The petition was heard and the Bench on 20th of September, 1979 dismissed the petition in limine. Although from the judgment of the Bench, it would be evident that the petition was dismissed, one of the matters on which opinion was expressed by the Bench, was that no suspension order had been passed against the Petitioner.;