AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.K. Vyas, J.
 The instant special appeal has been filed by the  appellant/writ-petitioner under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules and under Article 225 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment/order dated 07th of March 2018 passed
by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.7416/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the writpetitioner.
 Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent University was established under Bhupal Nobles‟ University Act, 2015 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as „Act‟). The appellant/writ-petitioner came to be appointed as
Registrar by the Chairperson of the respondent- Bhupal Nobles University Udaipur (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as „University‟) in exercise of power conferred under Section 18 (1) of the said Act on 24.04.2016 in the pay scale of
Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.10,000/- plus allowances as per University Rules per month w.e.f. from the date he assumes the charge of Registrar. The appellant/writ petition assumed the charge on 27.04.2016 as Registrar of the
respondent University and discharged his duties with sincerity and dedication.Â
 According to appellant/writ-petitioner in the second meeting of the Board of Management, held on 30.05.2016, Resolution No.2 was passed, whereby appointment of the appellant/writpetitioner was confirmed, which is placed on record as
Annex.3 to the writ petition. The appellant is possessing qualification of M.A. Archeology from Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth, Udaipur, Ph. D. in History and LL. B from M.L.S. University, Udaipur, and having total experience of fifteen years in
administrative side in various institutions including Bhupal Noble Sansthan.Â
 On 08.06.2017, an advertisement came to be issued by the respondent University which was published in daily newspaper viz. Rajasthan Patrika, whereby applications were invited for the post of Registrar in the respondent University. In
the notice, it was inter-alia stated that candidates must possess the requisite the qualification and also fulfill the norms of University Grants Commission (UGC) for the post of Registrar may apply for the said post. The appellant/writ petitioner
immediately after having come to know about the advertisement, met the Chairman and requested him that he is already serving on the post of Registrar and his services have been confirmed, thus publication of the advertisement is not
justified. On 07.06.2017 an information was published by the chairperson that if the selection process will not be completed and interviews will not be held on 22.06.2017, then he (chairperson) will assume the charge of Registrar.Â
 The appellant/writ-petitioner preferred writ petition before the Single Bench against the advertisement (Annex.4) issued on 08.06.2017 inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Registrar as he was already appointed and confirmed
by the respondent University.Â
While issuing notice on 24.07.2017, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order for maintaining of status quo for appointment to the post of Registrar, Bhupal Nobles‟ University, Udaipur and thereafter upon filing application under Article
226 (3) of the Constitution of India, the said order was modified vide order dated 14.12.2017 by the learned Single Judge and it was clarified that till the next date of hearing the respondent shall not proceed further with selection for the post of
Registrar in pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.06.2017, but it was made clear that the respondent University would be free to pass appropriate orders. During pendency of the writ petition, a communication was sent by the respondent
University on 19.01.2018 communicating to the writ-petitioner that you himself shown your inability to work on the post of Registrar and that you are not possessing the required qualification, therefore, you are hereby informed that your
services have been dispensed with, which was orally informed to you in past.Â
The respondent University filed its reply and in paragraph 4 of the reply it is stated that the appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed on 27.04.2016 as Registrar on temporary arrangement and thereafter he was reappointed on 12.05.2017,
however, the appointment of the appellant/writ petition is not outcome of regular selection, his appointment was temporary arrangement; and writ-petitioner is not fulfilling the qualification and norms as laid by the UGC, therefore, not applied
for the said post. Thus, his services were dispensed with. It is also stated in the reply that on 07/08.06.2017, applications were invited for the post of Registrar of the respondent University while exercising power under Section 18 of the Act.
The main ground in the reply filed by the respondent University is that the appointment of the appellant/writ-petitioner was purely on temporary basis, therefore, no right is created in favour of appellant/writ-petitioner. It is also submitted that
the appellant went on leave w.e.f. 19.06.2017 till 22.06.2017 and thereafter on 23.06.2017, he had verbally informed the respondent No.3 that he would not be able to undertake the duties because the University has undertaken the interview in
pursuance of the advertisement, in which the he (appellant) did not apply. The crux of the reply of the respondent University is that the appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar was not in consonance with law, therefore,
appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim continuance in the service on the post of Registrar because the respondent University is required to follow the rules and regulations and provisions of the Act for appointment on the post of Registrar,
therefore, vacancy was advertised, and it was specifically mentioned that the candidate must have possess the qualification as per norms of the UGC. According to respondent the appellant/writ petitioner is not possessing the qualification as
per UGC norms, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petition.
A rejoinder was filed by the writ-petitioner wherein it was categorically stated that he was possessing the qualification for the post of Registrar, and thereafter after his appointment, his services were confirmed by the University itself,
therefore, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remain as Registrar of the University. It is also stated in the rejoinder that the University had framed Statutes sand sent the same for approval to the State Government, however, the approval
has not been granted by the State. It is, however, directed by the State Government that only person with requisite qualification as UGC guidelines/norms may be appointed as Registrar but this fact is not correct because the University is
created under the Statutes and all the regular appointments under the Act, are required to be made as per the Statutes. The appellant was initially appointed temporarily and subsequently confirmed vide Resolution dated 30.05.2016, therefore,
there is no question to re-advertise the vacancy of Registrar. Â
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and held that the appellant/writ-petitioner‟s services have been terminated during pendency of this writ petition on 19.01.2018, therefore, he
will be entitled for his claim up till 19.01.2018 for which he will be free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and further held that the action of the respondent in initiating proceedings for appointment of Registrar fulfilling the electricity
in accordance with UGC norms, does not require any interference by the court except the claim of the petitioner for benefit up to 19.01.2018. The writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.03.2018.
First of all it is required to be observed that as per respondents, the advertisement in question has already been withdrawn by the respondent University and no selection as such took place in pursuance of the said advertisement. However,
learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent University is established under the Act known as “Bhupal Nobles‟ University Act, 2015†promulgated by the State legislature. While inviting attention
towards Section 18 of the Act, it is stated that there is provision for regular appointment on the post of Registrar and the Registrar shall be appointed by the Chairperson in such a manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes of the University.
Admittedly, as per respondent‟s case, the draft Statutes were prepared and were sent to the State Government, but still the State Government has not approved those Statutes, because a Committee has been constituted for the said purpose.
However, the State Govt. permitted the University to make recruitment as per UGC norms and this information was given by the State to the University vide Annex.3 on 30.05.2017. Meaning thereby, still the Statutes of the University has not
been approved and the respondent University is not disputing the fact that the appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed vide order dated 27.04.2016 by the Chairperson vide order Annex.2. It is also not disputed that the Board of Management in
its meeting dated 30.05.2016 took a decision vide Resolution No.2 as to confirm Dr. Mahendra Singh Rathore, as the President and Dr. Niranjan Narayan Singh as Registrar of Bhupal Nobles University Udaipur. Therefore, even if it is
presumed that after establishment of the University the recruitment was to be made as per the Statutes, there was power left with the Chairperson after establishment of the University to make appointment on the post of Registrar to run the
University, therefore, the appointment order was issued on 27.04.2016 while considering the qualification of the appellant/writ-petitioner.Â
The learned Single Judge observed that on the date of filing the writ petition, the writ-petitioner was in service and working on the post of Registrar and after taking note of the fact that during pendency of the writ petition, his services were
dispensed with on 19.01.2018. Although there was an interim order passed by the Single Bench for maintaining the status quo on 24.04.2017, which was subsequently modified on 14.12.2017 to maintain status quo, but flouting both the orders, it
was communicated by the respondent University through Chairperson vide letter dated 19.01.2018 that the services of the petitioners have been terminated by verbal order and to you in past.Â
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that it is a case in which the present respondent University gave complete goby to the Rules and Regulations and settled principles of law and without providing an opportunity of hearing or
giving any notice, the services of the employee cannot be dispensed with. It is also submitted that as per Section 18 of the Act, the appointment on the post of Registrar is required to be made as per in such manner as may be prescribed by the
Statutes and admittedly the Statutes are not approved till today, therefore, it was not open for the respondent University to complete goby to Section 18, in which mode of appointment is provided for the post of Registrar.Â
According to learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant against the action of the respondent University for initiation of
process for selection on the post of Registrar. Therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.Â
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the respondent- University is established under the Act, promulgated by the State legislature but appointments are to be made in accordance with law. As per learned counsel
for the respondent, the appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed on urgent temporary basis as a stopgap arrangement, that too at the time of establishment of the University and that the appointment order dated 27.04.2016 cannot be termed as
appointment on
substantive basis because as per the Statutes of the University, the regular appointment was to be made in the manner as prescribed in the Statutes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the appellant/writ-petitioner was in
consonance with law. It is further argued that the appellant/writ-petitioner himself left the services and specifically shown his disability to perform the duties of Registrar and went on leave, therefore, the learned Single Judge while taking into
consideration the entire facts of the case held that the appellant/writ-petitioner is not entitled for any relief because as per directions of the State Govt. the appointments were to be made as per UGC norms, which is evident from Annex.R/3/3,
which is a communication dated 30.05.2017 sent by the Joint Secretary of the Higher Education Department (Group-4) of the Govt. of Rajasthan.Â
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that it is a case in which the learned Single Judge has considered each and every aspect of the matter so as to decide the controversy for appointment on the post of Registrar, therefore,
the instant special appeal may kindly be dismissed.Â
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that the University was established under the Act framed by the State legislature. It is also admitted position of the case that the appellant/writ-petitioner was
appointed vide order dated 24.04.2016 (Annex.2) in the pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs.10,000/- plus allowance as per University Rules per month. It is also not in dispute that a resolution was passed by the University on
30.05.2016, whereby the services of the appellant/writ-petitioner on the post of Registrar were confirmed. The appointment order of the appellant/writ-petitioner (Annex.2) is produced herein below for ready reference: -
           “No.BNU/2016-17/01-04                  Â
                                                                                              Â
                                               Date 27.4.2016
Appointment Order
 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 18 (1) of the Bhupal Nobles’ University Act No.23, 2015.
I do hereby appoint Dr. Niranjan Narayansingh S/o Shri Arjun Singh Rathore as a Registrar of the Bhupal Bobles’ University, Udaipur in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP 10000/- plus allowance as per University rules per
month with effect from the date he assumed the charge of the office of the Registrar.
Sd/-
(Yashwant Singh Shaktawat)
Chairperson Bhupal Noble’s University Udaipur (Raj.)â€
The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management dated 30.05.2016 reads as under: -
“Resolution No.2
Considered confirmation of the appointment of Dr. Mahendra Singh Rathore as the President and Dr.  Niranjan Narayan Singh as the Registrar of Bhupal Nobles’ University, Udaipur.
RESOLVED to approve the confirmation of the appointment of Dr. Mahendra Singh Rathore as the President and Dr. Niranjan Singh as the Registrar of  Bhupal Nobles’ University, Udaipur.â€Â Â
 The facts averred in of the writ petition for issuance of appointment order and resolution for confirmation, have not been disputed by the respondent University, however, it is submitted that appointment was stopgap arrangement but upon
perusal of Annex.3 (Resolution), it is nowhere stated that the appointment was temporary in nature or stopgap arrangement. Neither the appointment order speaks that the appointment was on temporary or on ad hoc basis, nor the resolution
for confirmation of the writpetitioner on the post of Registrar is disputed. Meaning thereby at the time of appointment, there was no dispute about qualification of the appellant/writ-petitioner, therefore, he was appointed and his services were
confirmed by resolution (Annex.3) dated 30.05.2016 by the Board of Management.Â
We have perused Section 18 of the Act, which provides for appointment on the post of Registrar. The Section 18 of the Act reads as infra: -
“18. The Registrar: (1) The Registrar shall be appointed by the Chairperson, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes.
(2)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â All contracts shall be signed and all documents and records shall be authenticated by the Registrar on behalf of the University.
(3)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Registrar shall be the Member-Secretary of the Board of Management and Academic Council but he shall not have a right to vote.
(4)       The Registrar shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes.â€
From a bare perusal of Section 18 of the Act, it is obvious that there was power left with the Chairperson to appoint Registrar but only rider is that in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes, therefore, it can be presumed that first
appointment was made to run University while exercising power conferred u/s 18 of the Act by the Chairperson, but at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that for regular appointment, Statutes were to be followed and admittedly
the draft of Statutes sent by the respondent University to the State Government as per provisions of the Act for approval has not been granted by the State Government. However, information was sent to the University by State Government
that a Committee has been constituted for approval of the Statutes and till finalization of the
Statutes, the University may proceed with appointment as per UGC norms/regulations. Meaning thereby once the appellant/writpetitioner was appointed by the Chairperson, as per Section 18 of the Act and allowed to work as Registrar till
regular selection takes place in accordance with Statutes as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. There was no occasion for the University to proceed with initiation of process of selection before formation/approval of the Statutes by
the State as per mandatory provision under Section 18 of the Act, but the selection process was initiated for recruitment on the post of Registrar contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is very strange that without any formal order or providing
of opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner, his services were dispensed with by verbal order, and communicated to him vide communication dated 19.01.2018 by the Chairperson of Bhupal Nobles University Udaipur. In our opinion, every
University is under obligation to follow provisions of the Act for the purpose of recruitment and admittedly in this case, till today no selection on the post of Registrar has been made as per the Statutes of the University because the Statutes has
not been not approved/finalized by the State Government.
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent University that the University had initiated the process of selection as per UGC norms in pursuance of communication dated 30.05.2017 (Annex.R/3/3) because
as per provisions of Act, recruitment of the post of Registrar is to be made as per the Statutes of the University, which is not approved/finalized till today. Admittedly, without providing opportunity of hearing during pendency of the writ petition
by verbal order, the services of the appellant/writ-petitioner was dispensed with and information was given to the petitioner vide communication dated 19.01.2018 (Annex.A/1). The communication dated 19.01.2018filed along with 2nd stay
application, reads as under: -
“No.BNU/C/207-18/3752  Dated 19.1.2018 vksj ls xq.koUr flag >kyk pS;jilZu
Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky;]mn;iqj okLrsÂ
MkW- fujatu ukjk;.k flag] [kkSM+ gkml] 4 ch] fâ€kokth uxj] mn;iqj jktLFkkuA  vkidks mDr iathd`r lwpuk i= }kjk fuEukuqlkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fdÂ
&;g fdvki Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; easvxys vknsâ€k rd jftLVªkj dk dk;Z dj jgs Fks mDr dk;Z iw.kZr;k vLFkkbZ Fkk rFkk LFkkbZ vkSj lqpk: O;oLFkk gksus rd vkidks mDr in ij dk;Z djuk FkkA vkius fnukad 2206-2017 ls foâ€ofo|ky; eas
jftLVªkj ds in ij dk;Z djus es bl vk/kkj ij vleFkZrk trk nh Fkh fd vki bl in gsrq fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk,a ugha j[krs gSA
& ;g fd jktLFkku ljdkj }kjk fnukad 30-05-2017 dks izsf’kr i= Øekad i-3 ¼23½ fâ€k{kk&4@2011 ikVZ fnuakd 30-05-2017 ds vuqlkj Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; dks bl ckcr funsZfâ€kr fd;k x;k fd futh foâ€ofo|+ky;kas ds fy, Common
Status ykxw gksus rd foâ€ofo|ky; dks Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e 2015 ds izko/kkukas o fu;qfDr;kas ls lEcfU/kr ;wthlh jsxqysâ€ku ds izko/kkukas ds vuqlkj fofHkUu inkas ij fu;qfDr;ka djuh gSA foâ€ofo|ky; ,oa ;wthlh }kjk fu/kkZfjr
jftLVªkj gsrq U;wure ;ksX;rk dks vki iwjk ugha djrs gS ftldh tkudkjh vki}kjk Lo;a dks Hkh Hkyh&Hkkarh gS blh dkj.k vkius foâ€ofo|ky; }kjk ekaxs tkus ij dksbZ vkosnu jftLVªkj gsrq ugha fd;k] blh dkj.k foâ€ofo|ky; vkidh lsok,a tkjh j[kus
eas dkuwuh :i ls l{ke ugha gSA
& ;g fd foâ€ofo|ky; }kjk fnukad 08-06-2017 dks jktLFkku if=dk esa foKkiu izdkfâ€kr dj foâ€ofo|ky; eas jftLVªkj in gsrq fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk j[kus okys vH;kfFkZ;kas ls vkosnu vkeaf=r fd;s x;s gS ftleas vki }kjk fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk iwjh
ugha gksus ds dkj.k dksbZ vkosnu isâ€k ugha fd;kA foâ€ofo|ky; us izkIr vkosnuksa esa ls ;ksX; vH;kfFkZ;kas ds fnukad 2206-2017 dks lk{kkRdkj vk;ksftr dj Short Listed vH;kfFkZ;kas dh lwph cukdj mls desVh lnL;kas dh mifLFkfr eas
fyQkQs eas flycUn dj fn;k x;kA
& ;g fd vki }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ugha gksus ds dkj.k vLFkkbZ jftLVªkj dk in LosfPNd ,oa ekSf[kd :i ls NksM+ fn;k ftl ij foâ€ofo|ky; us izks- j?kqohj flag pkSgku] Mhu ih-th- LVsfMt dks jftLVªkj dk vfrfjDr dk;ZHkkj fnukad 24-06-2017
dks lqiqnZ fd;k rc ls izks* j?kqohj flag pkSgku jftLVªkj ds :i eas foâ€ofo|ky; ds dk;Z dk lapkyu dj jgs gSA bl lEcU/k eas foLr`r lwpuk vkidks fnukad 08-08-2017 dks izsf’kr i= }kjk nh tk pwdh gSA
&; fdvki jftLVªkj ds in gsrq U;wure;ksX;rkvkas dh ikyuk ugha djrs gS ,oa UGC Regulations ds vuqlkj flQZ ;ksX;rk /kkjd O;fDr gh jftLVªkj ds in ij dk;Z dj ldrk gS vr% fnukad 19-01-2018 ls vkidh lsok,a foâ€ofo|ky; ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA bl
lEcU/k eas iwoZ eas Hkh vkidks ekSf[kd :i ls lwfpr dj fn;k x;k FkkA Â Â fygktk bl iaftd`r lwpuk i= }kjk vkidh lsok,a lekIr djus ds ckjs eas lwfpr fd;k tk jgk gSA d`Ik;k bl lEcU/k eas vkxs i= O;ogkj ugha djsA
Sd/- Chairperson
Bhupal Noble’s University
Udaipur (Raj.)â€
It is very important to observe that in the aforesaid letter it is stated that the Chairperson of the respondent University observed that the writ-petitioner is not possessing the requisite qualification as per UGC norms and regulations, whereas on
27.05.2017, the Chairperson (Mr. Gunwant Singh Jhala) himself got published a press-release that Dr. Niranjan Narayan Singh (appellant) was appointed on the post of Registrar in accordance with Bhupal Noble‟s University Act, 2015 and he
is having experience and also possessing the qualification for the post of Registrar. This press-release is placed on record as Annex.A/2 filed along with rejoinder to reply, in which following press-release was made by the Chairperson (Mr.
Gunwant Singh Jhala), which reads as under: -
“
                                                                                 Â
                                fnukad 27-52007
izsl foKfIr
 Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; ds jftLVªkj ds in MkW- fujatu ukjk;.k flag dh fu;qfDr Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 2015 dsvuqlkjgh dh xbZ gSA MkW- fujatu ukjk;.kflag jkBkSM+] vuqHkkoh ,oa jftLVªkj in dh iw.kZ ;ksX;rk j[krs
gSA
 fnukad 27-5-2017 dks mn;iqj laLdj.k eas Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; ds lEcU/k eas izdkfâ€kr lekpkj dk eSa [kaMu djrk gawA
 Hkwiky ukscYl foâ€ofo|ky; ds eq[; }kj ij fd;k tk jgk /kukZ iznâ€kZu vâ€kksHkuh; gSA bl le; foâ€ofo|ky; dh izosâ€k izfØ;k izkjEHk gks xbZ gS ,oa f}rh; lsesLVj dh ijh{kk,a Hkh vk;ksftr dh tk jgh gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd Hkfo’;
eas dksbZ [kcj izdkfâ€kr djus ls igys lEcfU/kr i{kkas ls ppkZ djus dk d’V djkosA
 /kU;oknA
Hkonh;
Sd/-Â
¼xq.koUr flag >kyk½ pS;jilZuâ€
Upon consideration of entire material available on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondent University has acted completely in contravention of provisions of the Act, so also, their action to dispense with the services of the writ-
petitioner is contrary to the basic principle of law because the respondent University is not disputing the fact that the appellant was appointed on the post of Registrar by the competent authority; and subsequently a resolution was passed to
confirm his services on the said post. Even if the contention of the respondent University is accepted that the appellant/writ-petitioner was appointed on urgent temporary basis so as to run the University, then also, it was not open for the
respondent University to dispense with his services in illegal manner by verbal order because the post of Registrar is very important post in the University and for regular appointment, the provisions of Section 18 of the Act were to be
followed.Â
It is also worthwhile to observe that once the resolution was passed by the respondent University for confirmation of services of the appellant/writ-petitioner by the Board of Management, then decision for regular appointment and to dispense
with his services was to be taken by the Board of Management only. It emerges from the facts that without any decision of the competent authority or taking resolution, the services of the appellant/writpetitioner were dispensed with and post
was advertized without finalization of the Statutes by the State Government. It is settled principles of law that provisions of the Act for recruitment is required to be followed strictly but here in this case, for regular appointment there is
provision that appointment should be made as per Statutes, then obviously it was not open for the respondent University to issue advertisement for appointment on the post of Registrar. On the one hand the respondents in the communication
dated 19.01.2018 observed that the writ-petitioner is not possessing the qualification for the post of Registrar, whereas before the said communication, a press-release was issued by the Chairperson of the respondent University (Mr. Gunwant
Singh Jhala) vide Annex.A/2 filed along with rejoinder, and accepted that the writ-petitioner is possessing the qualification for the post of Registrar as per provisions of the Act and is most experience person. Once the appellant/writ-petitioner
was provided appointment on the post of Registrar by the competent authority of the University, then the University was under obligation to allow him to work till regularly selected candidates are recruited. In this case, the case of the
appellant/writ-petitioner is on better footings, inasmuch as after taking into consideration the first appointment, a resolution was passed by the Board of Management of the respondent University on 30.05.2016 and the services of the writ-
petitioner were confirmed on the post of Registrar, and thereafter there is no resolution so as to withdraw the earlier resolution whereby the services of the appellant were confirmed. Therefore, it is a case in which the respondent University
has given complete goby the provisions of the Act and the principles of natural justice.Â
In view of above, the instant special appeal is allowed, the order dated 07th of March 2018 passed by learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The communication dated 19.01.2018 communicated to the appellant/writ-petitioner
informing him that his services have been dispensed with, is also quashed and the respondent-University is directed to reinstate the appellant/writ-petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits. However, if respondent-University is still
desirous to make regular selection on the post of Registrar, then the respondent University will be at liberty to make selection after approval of the Statutes by the State Government.  Â