RAM SARAN TRIPATHI Vs. CHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor being Annexures 10 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. The petitioner claims that he was selected aa the Principal of Budha Postgraduate College, Sushinagar District Deoria, affiliated to the Gorakhpur Unversity by a duly constituted Selection Committee and that the Vice-Chancellor illegally refused to accord approval to his selection by the order dated 28-6-1980, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, he made a representation to the Chancellor who turned down the same on 12-12-1980 (see order Annexure 5 to the writ petition). The Vice-Chancellor refused to accord approval on the ground that the petitioner's selection was made by a committee in which no expert participated and as such there was no compliance of S. 31(6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (briefly, the Act, 1973). Similar view was taken by the Chancellor in his order dated 12th December, 1980. These orders were challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 2032 of 1981 on the ground that Dr. A. C. Banerji had acted as an expert on behalf of the Unviersity and thus there was full compliance of the provisions of S. 31(6) of the Act, 1973. This writ petition was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court by a single word order on 13th March, 1981. After the rejection of the said petition, the petitioner made another representation, Annexure to the writ petition, to the Chancellor. Under Secretary to the Chancellor sent a communication to the petitioner dated 3-11-1981, Annexure 7 to the writ petition that his representation, Annexure 6 had been forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University for necessary action. Then the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order dt. 29-1-1982, Annexure 8 to the writ petitioner rejecting the petitioner's second representation. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Chancellor by the representation dated 23-5-1982 challenging the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 29-1-1982. The Secretary to the Chancellor by the order dated 25-3-1983, Annexure 10 to the writ petition informed the petitioner that the Chancellor had been pleased to reject his representation dated 23-5-1982 as "non-maintainable."

(2.) On these facts, the preliminary objection of Sri Ratnakar Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that the instant writ petition is barred by the principles analogous to res judicata, inasmuch as, the earlier writ petition No. 2032 of 1981 which was rejected in limine by a Division Bench of this Court on 13-3-1981 and the instant writ petition, both are based on one and the same cause of action. Sri Bharti urges that in the earlier writ petition also, the petitioner sought quashing of the Vice-Chancellor's order on the ground that Dr. A. C. Banerji was Expert in the Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor was wrong in holding that the selection was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of S. 31(6) of the Act, 1973. It is further urged by him that in the instant writ petition also, same contention has been raised by the petitioner and there is no change either in the cause of action or in the contention of the petitioner in the earlier and the instant writ petition. Upon perusal of the earlier writ petition No. 2032 of 1981, it clearly appears that the petitioner sought quashing of the order of the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor, being Annexures 4 and 5 respectively in the instant writ petition on the ground that Dr. A. C. Banerji was Expert in the Selection Committee and the contrary view, taken by the Vice-Chancellor in the order dated 12-12-1980, Annexure 4, was illegal. In para 12 of that writ petition, the petitioner averred :

(3.) Ground No. 3 of that writ petition runs as follows: