The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appointment subject to the outcome of writ petitions does not warrant the grant of leave to appeal if the appointee does not participate in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Dharmnarayan Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5 along with Mr. Hemant Gupta.

2. I.A. No.2 of 2022 in W.A. No. 321 of 2022 is an application seeking grant of leave to prefer appeal against the Judgment dated 13.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.973 of 2020. It is to be noted that by the aforesaid judgment dated 13.06.2022, another writ petition, being Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020, was disposed of. I.A. No.2 of 2022 is an application seeking grant of leave to prefer appeal against the very same judgment in Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020. Both the writ petitions were filed by Dr. Rohini Prasad, who had taken charge as Vice-Chancellor of Sant Gahira Guru Vishwavidyalaya, Ambikapur, for short “the University” on 11.07.2017. The appellant was not a party respondent in the writ proceedings.

3. The State Government being satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the University cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, ‘the Adhiniyam, 1973’), without detriment to the interest of the University and that it was expedient in the interest of the University so to do, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the the Adhiniyam, 1973, the State Government had directed by notification dated 03.01.2020 that the provisions of Sections 13, 14, 23 to 25, 40, 47, 48, 54 and 68 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 shall, subject to the modifications specified in the Third Schedule, apply from the date of publication of the notification with immediate effect to the University. It is to be noted that an enquiry report dated 24.12.2019 was submitted by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division with regard to the affairs of the University.

4. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred under modified Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the Chancellor of the University and in consultation with the State Government, issued a Notification dated 06.01.2020, whereby, the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, namely, Dr. Rohini Prasad, respondent No. 5 herein was removed from the office of the Vice-Chancellor with immediate effect.

5. By another Notification dated 06.01.2020, the Chancellor had appointed Commissioner, Sarguja Division as the Vice-Chancellor of the University with immediate effect until further orders.

6. In Writ Petition (S) No.180 of 2020, challenge is made to the Notification dated 03.01.2020 and in Writ Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020, challenge is made to the Notification dated 06.01.2020 and enquiry report dated 24.12.2019. The learned Single Judge by the Judgment dated 13.06.2022 had allowed both the writ petitions by quashing the Notifications dated 03.01.2020 and 06.01.2020 and the enquiry report dated 24.12.2019. However, without granting back-wages, the petitioner was held to be entitled to all other benefits notionally.

7. It appears that an advertisement dated 30.12.2020 was issued for filling up of the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University and pursuant thereto, the appellant herein came to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor by an order dated 02.08.2021. In the said order of appointment, it was categorically mentioned that his appointment was subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition (S) No. 180 of 2020 and Writ Petition (S) No. 973 of 2020. The appellant had accepted the said position and did not take any steps to implead himself in the writ proceedings in order to protect his interest, as there was always the possibility that an order prejudicial to his interest may be passed in such proceedings.

8. When the appellant has chosen to remain a spectator during the course of the proceedings, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to grant leav