section (7) of the Act and he had done so, thirdly, that the plaintiff respondent 's ap pointment being complete and permanent, the Executive Com mittee of the University had no power left to nullify it; and lastly, that the authorities of the University, that is to say the Vice Chancellor and the Executive Committee, had (in the words used by the plaintiff respondent): "xx xx in collusion with one another with a view to put an end to the plaintiff 's services as Lecturer in Hindi in utter disre gard of the statutes and rules and the ap pointment letter issued by the then Vice Chancellor have collusively arranged and made manipulation in the report of Selection Com mittee and resolution of the Executive Commit tee for an order dated 10th April, 1971, and, in colourable exercise of power, are threaten ing to treat the plaintiff 's appointment as continuing till the end of Session but the plaintiff is continuing to discharge his function as permanent lecturer in Hindi and on account of interim injunction granted in suit No. 289 of 1971 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants terminating the services of the plaintiff the defendants have not been able to do any act adverse to the interest of the plaintiff".