1. - Mr. Parekh raised the preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the following grounds:

(1) Petitioner has concealed and suppressed the material facts and on this ground alone the writ petition should be rejected.

(2) Mr. Parekh has submitted that Section 43 of the Udaipur University Act of 1962 provides that the decision of the Board on all such matters shall, subject to the revision by the Chancellor, be final and shall not be liable to be challenged in any court or tribunal. His submission is that the revisional power vests in the Chancellor and the petitioner has not availed an alternative remedy and as such the writ petition is not maintainable, and the petitioner should be directed, if he so chooses to avail the alternative remedy.

(3) That there is misjoinder of cause of actions. Exs. 6,8 and 9, Ex. R1/8 are not in any way connected with each other and each of them gives fresh independent cause of action, and the writ petition should fail, on account of misjoinder of cause of actions.

2. Mr. Parekh has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of making unfounded and baseless allegations against the former Vice Chancellor, Dr. P