TMI Blog1961 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has any right entitling him to get an order for appointment or reinstatement. Our attention has not been drawn to any Article in the Statutes by which the appellant has a right to be appointed or reinstated and if he has not that right he cannot come to Court and ask for a writ to issue. It is therefore not necessary to go into any other question. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1961 - - - Dated:- 15-12-1961 - KAPUR, J.L., SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), HIDAYATULLAH, M., SHAH, J.C. AND MUDHOLKAR, J.R., JJ. Basudeva Prasad and Naunit Lal, for the Appellant N. C. Chatterjee, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala and M. K. Ramamurthy, for the respondents JUDGMENT KAPUR, J.- This is an appeal by special l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant, as an ex-officio member, was present. He alleges that he complained about this appointment to the Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University and he was, by a letter, advised by the Vice-Chancellor to watch and see what happens. On May 14, 1960 the Governing Body resolved to advertise the post. At this meeting also the appellant was present and on September 26, 1960 the Governing Body resolved to readvertise the post. Some candidates including the appellant were interviewed by the Governing Body and on December 18, 1960 it passed a resolution authorising the Chairman to make a selection from amongst the candidates who had been interviewed, and who included the appellant. In accordance with this resolution the President, respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant having himself applied for the post of Principal after the resolutions were passed by the new Governing Body and having offered himself for interview before the Governing Body could not challenge the legality of the appointment as he could not approbate and reprobate. The High Court held that the appellant s appointment was not valid as the Syndicate had not given its approval and the petitioner had been allowed to join the post of Principal without such approval; that the decision of the Governing Body to advertise for the post of Principal was neither a case of punishment nor termination of service nor was it a demotion of the appellant, therefore it did not fall under Arts. 7, 8 and 9 of the Statutes. It also held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
