Amita Gupta vs Chancellor,C.S.Azad University Of Agriculture & Ot

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.1.1995 passed by the Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur cancelling the appointment of the? petitioner.

This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the following order dated 13.2.1996? :

" Notice on behalf of? opposite parties 1 and 2? has been accepted by? Sri P.C. Agarwal. Issue notice to opposite party no. 3 returnable? by mid of April 1996.

During the meanwhile, we heard the parties on? the issue of? interim relief, if any. On behalf of petitioner, it was urged that she was duly selected by the Selection Committee and her? selection was approved by the Board of Management. The respondents now proposed the termination of her? appointment on the complaint of? a private individual who was neither a candidate nor a prospect one; as? a matter of fact he had not even applied for the job, his complaint was that the petitioner''s appointment was in excess of the notified vacancies.

Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2? drew our attention towards the case of Ashok Kumar and others Vs. The Chairman,? Banking Service Recruitment Board and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 276 and submitted that since the petitioner''s appointment was in excess? of the notified vacancies, therefore, it? could not be sustained.

It appears that the phraseology intent and thrust of the relevant notification giving rise to the petitioner''s appointment could not get requisite attention of the learned? counsel because a bare perusal thereof would show that there was every likelihood of? some decrease or increase in the vacancies and since the petitioner was selected under such process, prima facie, we feel that she has a right to continue on the said assignment.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, we direct that till further order of this Court, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 31.1.1995, contained in Annexure1 would remain in abeyance. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to file their counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit if any, may be filed within a? week thereafter. List after? expiry of the said period."

After the aforesaid interim order, the petitioner continued to serve and she has been given two promotions, which were duly approved by the Board of Management and the Chancellor has not interfered with the promotion orders in any manner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of finally in terms of the interim order dated 13.2.1996 and the cancellation order dated 31.1.1995 has lost its efficacy in the changed circumstances.?

Writ petition is disposed of.