PARIHAR, J. - (1.) SINCE both the special appeals have arisen out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge, on joint request of the parties, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) APPLICATIONS were invited for appointment on one post of the Registrar in the Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred to as `the appellant-University'), vide advertisement dated 5. 3. 1998. The same was again notified in the subsequent advertisement dated 13/15. 4. 1998, including some more posts apart from the post of Registrar. In pursuance to the above advertisement, 17 applications were received for the post of Registrar. After scrutiny of the applications, 10 candidates were found eligible. The interviews were held on 6. 11. 1998. The writ petitioner-appellant Shri R. K. Vyas (hereinafter to be referred to as "the writ petitioner") was also called for interview. The Selection Committee recommended the name of one Shri Ram Kishore Sharma for appointment on the post of Registrar in the appellant University. The name of the writ petitioner was kept in the reserve list. The recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 6. 11. 1998 were placed before the Board of Management for approval. The Board of Management, in its meeting held on 9. 11. 1998, approved and recommended the name of Shri Ram Kishore Sharma for appointment on the post of the Registrar and Shri Sharma was accordingly appointed as the Registrar of the appellant University, vide order dated 9. 11. 1998. Subsequently, Shri Ram Kishore Sharma retired from services on 28. 2. 1999 on attaining the age of superannuation, as such, the post of the Registrar fell vacant. However, one day prior to the retirement of Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, the then Vice Chancellor, exercising his powers under Section 19 (3) and (4) of the University of Ajmer Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act'), appointed the writ petitioner Shri R. K. Vyas on the post of Registrar, vide order dated 27. 2. 1999. In the above letter of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the writ petitioner has been appointed on the post of Registrar as per the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 6. 11. 1998 and approved by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 9. 11. 1998. Among other terms and conditions, it was also mentioned in the letter of appointment that the appointment is temporary till further orders, subject to confirmation thereof from the Board of management. The writ petitioner was to be placed on probation for one year only after the appointment order being confirmed by the Board of Management. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Board of Management in its meeting dated 14. 7. 2000. Though, the Board of Management did not approve appointment of the writ petitioner Shri R. K. Vyas on the post of Registrar, however, constituted a Committee to enquire into the matter of appointment of the writ petitioner on the post of Registrar vide order dated 27. 2. 1999 by the Vice Chancellor. The Committee, so constituted, was to give its report on the points formulated by the Board of Management, which are reproduced hereasunder :- " (a) Whether Shri R. K. Vyas was having necessary qualifications as per rules for appointment for the post of Registrar and whether minimum qualification was changed before initiating the selection process? (b) Whether appointment of Shri R. K. Vyas, from reserved list was in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the extent orders of the State Government? (c) Shri Sita Ram Chauhan, Principal, Government College, Ajmer (retired) and the other members of the Board of Management, MDS University made a public statement that when recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Board of Management, the reserved list was not before it. This fact may be enquired. " The Board of Management also decided that the writ petitioner shall continue as temporary Registrar of the appellant University till further decision.
(3.) AS has come on record, the Committee constituted by the Board of Management, to enquire into the appointment of the writ petitioner as Registrar, for one reason or the other, could not function and, as such, the Vice Chancellor of the appellant University made a reference, under Section 19 (4) read with Section 8 (2) of the Act, to the Chancellor - His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan, vide letter dated 12. 12. 2000. On consideration of the reference made by the Vide Chancellor, the Chancellor conveyed his opinion that the reserve list in the present case had not been approved by the Board of Management and further since there existed no circumstances warranting application of Section 19 (4) of the Act and that with the termination of selection process upon appointment of Shri R. K. Sharma, reserve list could not have been acted upon, therefore, the appointment of the writ petitioner Shri R. K. Vyas from the reserve list was illegal. The Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor of the appellant University to withdraw the appointment of the writ petitioner Shri R. K. Vyas as Registrar in accordance with law. Consequently, a notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 12. 1. 2001 to show cause as to why his appointment order dated 27. 2. 1999 be not cancelled forthwith. The writ petitioner while submitting his reply to the show cause notice before the concerned authorities, also filed a writ petition before this Court on 17. 1. 2001 itself, challenging the above show cause notice dt. 12. 1. 2001 and also making some additional prayers. The prayers made in the writ petition are reproduced here as under:- " (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned show cause notice dt. 12. 1. 2001 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be restrained from again initiating the process of cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Registrar. (ii) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the appointment order of the petitioner to the post of Registrar, MDS University, Ajmer dated 27. 2. 1999 may kindly be declared as legal and valid and the respondents be directed to confirm the petitioner by counting the probation period of one year from 27. 2. 1999 after deleting/modifying clause No. (1) land (2) of the appointment order of the petitioner. (iii) Alternatively it is submitted that the petitioner be allowed to continue on the post of Registrar till the report of the committee by the Board of Management vide its Resolution dated 14. 7. 2000 is received and final decision is taken by the Board of Management. (iv) any other or further, impugned order is passed by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petitioner, prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner, may also kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside. (v) Or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. " Since the counsel for the appellant University had already put up appearance before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition filed by the petitioner; S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 252/2001, was listed before the learned Single Judge on 23. 1. 2001 and again on 24. 1. 2001 when the arguments were heard and concluded and order was reserved. ;