RATHORE, J. - (1.) BY way of this present petition the petitioner prayed the following prayers: (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 14. 7. 2004 may be quashed and set aside. (ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent University may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue to work as Member of the Syndicate, University of Rajasthan as per his nomination order dated 25. 8. 2003 and he may be continued as a member of Selection Committee being a member of Syndicate as he was earlier appointed for the same for a period of one year. (iii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent/university may be restrained from nominating any other person as Member of the Syndicate in place of the petitioner and if any such illegal order of nominating any person is issued during pendency of the writ petition, the same order may kindly be taken on record and it may also be quashed by the Hon'ble Court. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (v) Cost of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) THE main controversy is with regard to that while exercising power vested under Section 21 (1) (iv) of the University Act the Vice Chancellor nominated the petitioner on 25. 8. 2003 as member of Syndicate for a period of three years. The controversy arose when the order dated 14. 7. 2004 was issued by the Registrar, University of Rajasthan by which it is alleged by the petitioner that the Registrar, University of Rajasthan has cancelled the nomination of the petitioner as Member of Syndicate without affording proper opportunity of hearing before passing of order dated 14. 7. 2004. Therefore, the present petition. The petitioner was listed on 28. 6. 2004. The notices were issued to the respondents. Service is affected upon the respondents but on 01. 12. 2004 none appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service. The writ petition was admitted and notices were also issued to the respondents. The operation of order dated 14. 7. 2004 was stayed. Dr. S. D. Mishra, who has been nominated in place of the petitioner filed application for impleadment as necessary party. The applicant was impleaded as party respondent No. 3. A reply was also submitted on behalf of Dr. S. D. Mishra. After receipt of the reply since the respondent has raised preliminary objections, the petitioner moved application for amendment in the writ petition. The amendment application is strongly objected by the respondent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for Dr. Mishra has submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and the petition itself is not maintainable. It should be dismissed solely on the ground of grave concealment of material facts. The petitioner also tried to mislead this Court by mentioning wrong facts on oath. Mr. Rastogi referred para 5 of the petition and after referring para 5 he submits that Shri Raghu Sharma tried to make out a case that he was nominated as member of the Syndicate of the University of Rajasthan by Vice Chancellor under his powers conferred under Section 21 (1) (iv) of the University of Rajasthan Act. This averment is patently false and Shri Raghu Sharma was nominated vide order dated 25. 8. 2003 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan under Section 21 (1) (viii) of the University of Rajasthan Act. This fact has repeatedly been written in the writ petition in several paras that the petitioner is nominated by the Vice Chancellor as a member of Syndicate and the same has been withdrawn by the Vice Chancellor without affording opportunity of being heard and without showing any justification. ;