The classification of urgent and non-urgent cases by the Senior Vacation Judge under the order of the Chief Justice was an administrative function and did not fetter the jurisdiction of the court to entertain fresh matters which required immediate attention.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has entered the portals of this Court challenging the impugned order (Annexure 30)passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, whereby the vice-Chancellor has revoked the suspension order dated 9. 3. 97, passed by the Management committee, D. N. (PG) College, Meerut, of course, qualifying it with a proviso that the on-going disciplinary enquiry against the 3rd respondent-Dr. P. C. Pachuari, suspended Principal of the college, may go on.

( 2 ) THE Petition was presented in the Registry on 4th June, 1997 with a concommitant application for interim relief in addition to a separate application attended with an affidavit, unfolding therein the urgency for the matter to heard in the course of vacation. On the urgency application, the learned Senior Vacation Judge seripted the following order :

"5. 6. 97 registry does not find the case to be urgent. Report of the Registry is upheld. Petition may come up after vacation. Sd-DS Sinha sr. Vacation Judge. "

( 3 ) ON 5. 6. 97 itself, the petitioner moved another application which came to be registered as civil Misc. Application No. 39367 of 1997 praying therein that the Court may call for the record of the writ petition consistent with its urgency and pass such other and further order as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. Viewing the urgency in its pros and cons, the said application was directed by this Court to be put up with the record the following day and that is how, the matter has found its access to this Court on 6. 6. 1997.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri Shailendra for the petitioner, Sri S. N. Upadhaya for the Vice-Chancellor and Sri ramesh Upadhayaya holding brief of Sri V. K. Shukla, appearing for the 3rd respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the Vice-Chancellor raised a preliminary objection that in the teeth of the order passed by the learned Sr. Vacation Judge, relegating the petition to come up after vacation, this Court is left with no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent put weight to the said argument of Sri S. N. Upadhayaya on the question of jurisdiction and on merits, he urged that no case was made out obstenibly for interference by this court. The first question, therefore, that is to be decided is whether the Court is seized of the jurisdiction to hear the matter during vacations. It is beyond the pale of controversy that "fresh in service writs" was apportioned by the Hon. C. J. to this Court for the first week commencing from June 2 to June 6 of the summed vacation, 1997 and besides nominating vacation Judges in different jurisdictions, the Hon. C. J. nominated Hon. D. S. Sinha, J to act as of Senior Vacation judge during summer vacation, 1997 with the following rider :

"during the vacation, only urgent matters which cannot wait till the opening of the Court, can be entertained. Civil cases and writ petitions filed during the vacation should be accompanied by a separate application supported by an affidavit specifically stating the urgency in the matter. Such application will be examined by the Addl. Registrar (Listing) or any Officer Incharge of his office during the vacation and in case, it is felt that the case is not urgent, and it can wait till the reopening of the Court the record will be placed before the Hon. Senior Vacation Judge for his consideration. "

( 5 ) REQUIREMENT of civil cases and writ petitions being accompanied by a separate application supported by an affidavit stating the urgency in the matter is not a requirement of the Rules of the Court, 1952. It is under the order aforestated that a separate urgency application is required to be filed in civil cases and writ-petitions. However, it brooks no dispute that the constitution of benches and allocation of work to each Bench is prerogative of the Chief Justice and the same finds its echo in Chapter V, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, 1952. Rule 10 of Chapter V which is the relevant marin