IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 25 of 2008 (S/B) Sri Ghan Shyam Tripathi S/o Late Sri M.D. Tripathi, R/o 35 Rajpur Road, District Dehradun. ............... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Director of Higher Education, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Chancellor, H.N. Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, Raj Bhawan, Dehradun. 3. The H.N. Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal, Through the Registrar. 4. The Principal / Secretary, DAV Post Graduate College, Dehradun. 5. Sri R.K. Jain, R/o 4 Arvind Marg, Dehradun. ............. Respondents Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Counsel with Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 & 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon'ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) An order was passed on 9th June, 1992 by the Chancellor, H.N. Bahuguna Garhwal University, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the approval granted vide order dated 10th January, 1991 by the Vice Chancellor of the said University, with respect to the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in the Botany Department of the University, was rescinded. Writ Petition No. 5651 of 2001 (S/S), filed by the petitioner in this Court against the aforesaid order dated 9th June, 1992, was dismissed by this Court by holding that the Chancellor was absolutely correct in rescinding the earlier approval accorded by the Vice Chancellor because, admittedly, as per Section 31 of the U.P. Universities Act, the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor had not been obtained by respondent No. 4 College for the appointment of the petitioner. In the course of this judgment, the Division Bench, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 5651 of 2001 (S/S), also took note of the earlier judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner relating to the disapproval of the petitioner in the year 1982 by an order passed on 27th March, 1982. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment dated 10th March, 2004 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 5651 of 2001 (S/S), the petitioner went to the Supreme Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court, vide order dated 5th May, 2006, dismissed the SLP (Civil) No. 18775 of 2004. The petitioner has once again approached this Court, this time invoking the new ground. According to the petitioner, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act for obtaining a copy of the order dated 27th March, 1982 passed by the Vice Chancellor, whereby the approval was refused. The petitioner has relied upon two documents in support of his contention that as a response to his aforesaid application under the Right to Information Act, it has been stated that such a document does not exist. Because of the alleged non-existence of the aforesaid document, the petitioner says that the order dated 9th June, 1992 passed by the Chancellor was bad because it relied upon the earlier order of 27th March, 1982. We do not agree with this contention of the petitioner because a careful perusal of the order dated 9th June, 1992 clearly informs us that the Chancellor did not base his decision of rescinding the earlier approval, accorded on 10th January, 1991, upon the order dated 27th March, 1982, but upon a host of various other considerations, mainly and chiefly, the consideration that in terms of the statute, the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor had not been obtained with respect to the appointment of the petitioner and, on that ground, the petitioner's appointment was invalid. He also took note of the reply of the College Management that indeed the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1975-1976 for some brief spells against an available leave vacancy and he was not appointed thereafter on a regular basis. For identical reasons, we cannot find any error or illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 5th September, 2007 passed by the Chancellor rejecting the petitioner's contention that since 9th June, 1992 order passed by the Chancellor was based on the letter dated 27th March, 1982 and because that letter was a fake and forged document, 9th June, 1992 order should have been treated as non est in the eyes of law. By a detailed and elaborate reasoning, the Chancellor has come to the conclusion that 27th March, 1982 order / letter could not be treated as a fake or forged document. We agree with the reasoning adopted by the Chancellor. The writ petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 03.03.2008 03.03.2008 G