The term of a Vice-Chancellor of a University cannot be extended beyond the period specified in the relevant statute or Act, and any such extension is void.

RAJENDRA NATH MTTTAL, J.

1. Briefly the facts are that Shri Hardwari Lal respondent No. 2 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the University) on 27th October, 1977 for a period of three years by the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, exercising the powers under statute 4(6) of the First Statutes of the University contained in the Schedule to the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a promise that his term would be renewed for a similar period. The Chancellor did not renew the term as promised by him. Therefore, the respondent filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 3658 of 1980 for mandamus that the Chancellor be directed to renew the second term inter alia on the ground of promissory estoppel. The Court accepted the writ petition on 16th September, 1981 on the ground that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was attracted and directed the Chancellor to renew the term of the respondent for a period of three years with effect from 27th October, 1980. The judgment is reported as Hardwari Lal V/s. G. D. Tapase, AIR 1982 Punj and Har 439 (hereinafter referred to as the Full Bench judgment).

2. The Chancellor and the State Government preferred a special leave petition (S.L.P. No. 7941 of 1981) in the Supreme Court of India and also prayed for staying the operation of the judgment. On 30th September, 1981, the Court granted the stay as prayed for subject to the condition that the respondent would be entitled to the use of his residence, car and Personal Assistant and that he would be paid the entire salary and allowances till the end of September, 1981 within a period of one month. The Registrar of the University was directed to carry on day to day administrative work of the University. In pursuance of the order the Registrar started discharging the functions of the Vice-Chancellor.

3. On 4th June, 1982, a compromise was arrived at between the respondent on the one hand and the Chancellor and the State Government on the other according to which it was agreed that the respondent would assume the office of the Vice-Chancellor immediately after the issuance of notification in terms of the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The Supreme Court, in view of the compromise between the parties, allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal. In terms of the compromise, a notification dated 7th June, 1982 was issued by the Chancellor appointing the respondent as Vice-Chancellor of the University and he started functioning as such with effect from 8th June, 1982. His term, according to the notification, was to expire on 27th October, 1983.

4. The Chancellor, vide notification dated 10th October, 1983 published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 10th October, 1983 (Annexure P. 1) allowed the respondent to continue as Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of 19 months and 10 days from 28th October, 1983 to 6th June, 1985.

5. Petitioner No. 1, an M.L.A., and petitioner No. 2, a Professor in the Kurukshetra Universtiy, have challenged the aforesaid notification, inter alia, on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor could hold office for a period of three years which term could be renewed for not more than one term under the Act; but by notification dated 10th October, 1983 further term for 19 months and 10 days has been given to the respondent. The Chancellor had no jurisdiction to issue the notification, especially in view of the judgment of this Court. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of the writ petition the Governor of Haryana promulgated Ordinance No. 7 of 1984 by which he added a proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 9A of the Act, which says that the person holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor, who was appointed or is deemed to have been appointed before 1st November, 1980, would continue to be governed by the law in force at the time of his appointment. It is alleged that the prov