DR. K.P. PANDEY Vs. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this review petition the Petitioner Dr. K.P. Pandey wants us to review the judgment given by us on 3rd May, 1976, in Civil Writ Petition No. 139 of 1976 which was filed by him, challenging certain notifications issued on behalf of the Respondent Vice -Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University. Shortly stated, by notification which was produced in that writ petition as Annexure E one Mr. V.S. Mathur who was Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition was appointed as the Head of the Department of Education with immediate effect in place of the Petitioner. By second notification which was Annexure E.1 it was declared that the said Professor Mathur as Head of the Department of Education would hold the office of the Dean, Faculty of Education, vice the present Petitioner. By the third notification Annexure E.2 Professor Mathur was declared a member of the Executive Council in place of the Petitioner in accordance with the statute 10 (1)(ii) of the First Statutes. Thus the effect of these three impugned notifications was that the Petitioner could not continue as the Head of the Department of Education or as the Dean of the Faculty of Education or as a member of the Executive Council, and his place was taken up by Professor Mathur. The case of the Petitioner was that he was entitled to continue on these three posts upto March 29, 1976, but before that date his functioning on the above three posts was illegally stopped on account of the above referred notifications which were issued on January 5, 1976.

(2.) One more notification was also challenged by the Petitioner in that writ petition. It was the notification Annexure K issued on January 6, 1976, by which the Vice -Chancellor of the University appointed an Enquiry Committee to enquire into certain charges levelled against the Petitioner with regard to the alleged publication and sale of a book titled "Programme Learning".

(3.) So far as the first three notifications referred to above are concerned, it was the contention of the Respondents in that writ petition that the Petitioner was appointed as Director of Correspondence Courses -cum -Professor of Education which was a post in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses and therefore he was never appointed to the post of Professor in the Department of Education. According to the Respondents, therefore, when the post of Professor in the Department of Education was filled in by the appointment of Prof. Mathur, the Petitioner was no longer entitled to function on that post, though during the interim period, that is, before the appointment of Dr. Mathur, an ad hoc arrangement was made with a view to run the administration, and by this arrangement the Petitioner was allowed to function on the above referred three posts from which he was removed by the above three impugned notifications.