By the Court.—Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Varma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, i.e. college, under which the respondent No. 3 was employed as lecturer on contract basis under the self-finance scheme, has challenged the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Rohil Khand University, whereby he has declined to accord approval for removal of the respondent No. 3 from service and has disapproved such action of the petitioner.

3. The undisputed facts are that the contractual appointments of lecturers are made under the self-finance scheme in accordance with the Government Orders issued from time to time and their terms and conditions of service are also regulated by the said Government Orders. Such appointments are not made under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 nor the conditions of service are governed thereunder. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as lecturer on contract basis under the self-finance scheme by the petitioner on 31.10.2010 in the department of eduction after due and proper selection for a period of three years. The said appointment was alleged to have been made under the Government Order dated 9.5.2000. The appointment order also contained a stipulation that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three years, his name would be considered on priority for reappointment, subsequently, he was free to leave the job by giving three months’ notice to the management. Ultimately, if the management is not satisfied with his teaching work, disciplinary action can be taken including removal from service, with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of M.J.P. Rohil Khand University. The appointment order is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition.

4. The respondent No. 3 had filed a writ petition bearing No. 69240 of 2013 alleging oral termination of his services and challenging the same. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.12.2013 directing the respondents therein that if the services of the respondent No. 3 herein had been terminated and if any order has been passed, the copy of the same may be provided to the respondent No. 3 herein within a week from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the said order and if the services of the petitioner had been terminated, the necessary information in this regard may be communicated in writing to the respondent No. 3 herein.

5. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2013 by this Court, the petitioner alleges that it informed the respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 4.1.2014, that his appointment came to an end automatically on the expiry of the three years period, for which he was appointed under the Government Order dated 9.5.2000 and that his services had not been terminated orally. It was also stated that the respondent No. 3 had accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment.

6. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition bearing Writ-A No. -11011 of 2014 being aggrieved by the termination of his contractual appointment, which was disposed of on 20.2.2014 by providing that the petitioner may make a representation raising grievances before the respondent No. 2, i.e. University Vice-Chancellor. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of this Court, an application was submitted by the respondent No. 3 before the Vice-Chancellor, i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, the Committee of Management of the petitioner was represented before the Vice-Chancellor through the Principal of the college and there is no dispute in this regard.

7. The contention of the respondent No. 3 before the Vice-Chancellor was that he had been teaching continuously since 1.11.2010, he had not been given any notice on the ground of incompetence, irregularity and indisciplined on his part. The termination of his services during the statutory period of continuance of th