( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned counsel for the respondent, waives service. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

( 2 ) THROUGH this Letters Patent Appeal, order of the learned Single Judge dated 22-03-2004 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3550 of 2004 is challenged by the appellant-South Gujarat University.

( 3 ) IN exercise of powers under Section 11 (4) (a) of South Gujarat University Act, 1965, Controller of Examinations (respondent) was suspended by the Vice Chancellor of the University on October 22, 2003. The order was challenged by the respondent through Application No. 35 of 2003 before the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal, constituted under the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983. By interim order dated 04-11-2003 passed in Application No. 35 of 2003, the Tribunal directed the appellant to call ordinary meeting of the Syndicate before 18-11-2003, and to inform about the action taken by the Vice Chancellor. It was left open for the respondent to prefer Appeal to the Syndicate on or before 07-11-2003, and if such Appeal is preferred, Syndicate to decide the same, on or before 18-11-2003. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor informed the Syndicate about the suspension of the respondent, and in the meantime, the respondent had also preferred Appeal on 06-11-2003. The meeting of the Syndicate was fixed on 13-11-2003. The Syndicate passed Resolution ratifying the action taken by the Vice Chancellor. Having done so, it did not entertain the Appeal of the respondent. Consequently, the matter was decided by the Tribunal on 25-02-2004, thereby quashing the decision of Syndicate of the University, and directed it to take decision on the Appeal by a speaking order, adopting just and proper procedure and considering the principles of natural justice, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Respondent was permitted to submit additional grounds in connection with his Appeal preferred, and if the same is done, Syndicate was directed to consider the same on merits within the period allowed along with the main Appeal, extending liberty to approach the Tribunal in the subject matter in accordance with law as and when cause of action arose. Costs of Rs. 5000. 00 have also been awarded in favour of the respondent against the appellant. This order was challenged by the appellant through Special Civil Application No. 3550 of 2004. Vide judgment and order dated 22-03-2004, Special Civil Application has been dismissed. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 4 ) SHRI Dhaval C. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that Appeal is permissible against the order of Vice Chancellor, therefore, the moment ratification is accorded, order of suspension by the Vice Chancellor becomes order of Syndicate, hence, appeal is not maintainable because Section 11 (4) (b) provides for appeal only against the order of Vice Chancellor, and not against the order of Syndicate, the purpose being, once the respondent is heard on ratification, the purpose of filing appeal is achieved. Even if the appeal is presumed to be competent, despite rectification, no fruitful purpose would be served by hearing the respondent in appeal, since decision in appeal cannot be different from the one taken in ratification. Further submission is that order of Vice Chancellor is not final, but requires ratification by the Syndicate. In other words, the submission is that power of Vice Chancellor is provisional subject to ratification by the Syndicate. Once it is ratified, it becomes order of Syndicate. With a view to bring home the point, two decisions, namely, Miss Sonal V. Shah and others vs. Gujarat University and another ( (1981) 32 GLR 934) and The Vice-Chancellor, Jammu University and another vs. Dushinant Kumar Rampal (AIR 1977 SC 1146) are brought to our