Honble Dr. CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 28.7.1997 (Annx. 9), by which petitioners services have been terminated.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner had been appointed temporarily as Lecturer in Botony Department in the respondent University vide order dated 27.10.1969. She stood confirmed on 14.12.1972 and later on promoted as Associate Professor on 24.12.87. She proceeded on leave for doing the Post Doctoral Research in the United States of America and stayed there from 29.8.90 to 15.10.96. Petitioner came to India on 16.10.96 and went back to U.S.A. again after applying for leave on 24.12.96. Petitioner sent several applications and FAX messages from there seeking extension of her leave on medical ground. She also sent a letter dated 19.3.97 stating that if her leave could not be extended, she may be given voluntary retirement. However, her services stood terminated vide order dated 28.7.97. Hence this petition.

(3). Mr. B.D. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that petitio- ner was a permanent and confirmed employee who had served for more than twenty-five years in the University and she could not have been terminated so unceremoniou- sly. His entire case is that under no circumstance, the service of a confirmed employee can be terminated without holding an enquiry. Moreso, an agreement between the parties had been entered into at the time of appointment, which provided a detailed procedure of termination in case of misconduct etc., which has not been followed.

(4). Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent University, has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petition has been filed by petitioner through the Power of Attorney-holder, which is not permissible and it is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the termination order dated 28.7.97 has been challenged by filing the petition on 13.5.98. Moreso, full- fledged enquiry was not required to be held for the reason that the petitioner was never sanctioned the leave and she was informed, vide, telegram on 7.9.97 (Annx. R/2) that the learned Vice Chancellor had refused to grant the leave and a notice dated 22.2.97 (Annx. R/3) was also served upon her to show cause why her services be not terminated being wilfully absent from duty. Petitioner did not file any reply to the said show cause, hence the order has been passed terminating her services in view of the provisions of Clause (5) of the Ordinance 327 of the University.

(5). The issue of filing a writ petition through Power of Attorney-holder is no more res-integra as it has been considered by the Honble Apex Court time and again. In Charanjit Lal Choudhary vs. Union of India & ors. (1), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the legal rights that can be enforce in writ jurisdiction must ordinarily be the rights of the petitioner himself/herself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. ``The right that can be enforced under Article 226 shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto, this rule may have to be relaxed or modified.

(6). In the State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal (2), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the language of the Article itself shows that the issue of writs or directions by the Court is founded only on its decision that a right of the aggrieved party has been infringed.

(7). Again, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered this issue in Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietory) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & ors. (3), and held that except in a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto, the person can approach the Court only for redressal of his personal grievances.

(8). In State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Suraj Prakash Kapur (4), the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document