( 1 ) THIS appeal is listed today for the 42nd time after issuance of notice at the first instance. Thereafter, it was adjourned and today it is finally heard and disposed of. In between, there were attempts to settle the matter outside the court. Representation was made by the appellant to the University for reconsidering its decision of terminating him from service while on probation. Finally, by fax message dated 16. 12. 2004 learned Advocate General, Mr. Shelat was informed by the registrar of university that in principle it was decided by the Syndicate to accept the resignation of the appellant from the date he was discharged from service as probationer. However, it is not acceptable to the appellant, therefore, the matter is now required to be decided on merits. Be that as it may.

( 2 ) THE appellant has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order dated 7/8. 8. 2001 passed by p. M. Majmudar, J. allowing Special Civil Application no. 5412/00 filed by the respondent-University whereby the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition filed by the respondent-university and quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28. 12. 1999 passed by the Gujarat Universities Service Tribunal at Ahmedabad (for short "the Tribunal")

( 3 ) THE appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Archaeology Faculty of Arts in respondent-The Maharaja sayajirao University of Baroda on probation. His performance during the period of probation was not satisfactory, therefore, by a letter dated 20. 3. 1983 (Annexure-C to the main petition), his explanation was called for, on the following seven points :-"1. In the teaching time-table of the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, for the year 1982-83, you are assigned four periods per week at Third Year B. A. , for presenting before the students visual aids like antiquities, Photographs and slides in the classroom and also to take the students to the departmental museum to show them sequential evidence of artifacts of man as exhibited in the museum. In your letter dated 12 Feb. 1983 you accept the fact that you were assigned the visual aids classes not only for 1982-83 but also for 1981-82. But in both the years you have thoroughly neglected this assignments. You are never known to have taken the students to the museum or taken any antiquity to show in the class room. IN the two years you have not taken a total of 8 classes. This is gross dereliction of duty. This was brought to your notice through letters, No. ARC/362 dated 17. 1. 1983 and ARC/394 dated 1. 2. 1983. Your reply dated 7. 3. 1983 stating, "i have been taken visual aids classes whenever required", is bad in grammar and amounts to a refusal to do the duties assigned to you in the required manner as scheduled in the departmental time-table. 2. You were asked on 1. 2. 1983 to give three lectures on simple topics which form the beginning part of paper 1 at M. A. Part 1 : Lower Palaeolithic period and Upper Palaeolithic Period, on 17, 19 and 19 Feb. 1983. Even though you had 16 days to read and prepare for these three lectures, through your letter dated 12. 2. 1983 you refused to give the lectures on the dates fixed for them, stating that you needed more than two months to prepare for them. Even if you had elementary knowledge of the subject you could have easily prepared the above topics in 16 days. Your refusal to give the lectures shows your incompetence lack of will and interest in the subject. 3. On 9. 3. 1983, in the presence of teachers and graduate students of the department you accepted that you were unable to lecture, you said that you could only read notes. 4. You were asked to give three lectures on 9, 10 and 11 March 1983 on the significance of the Excavations at Vagad, Excavations at Jokha and Excavations at Champaner, respectively. On 9 and 10 March you read notes on the Excavations at Vagad and Excavations at Champaner. But you did not know what you were reading. This was bro