Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Challenge herein is to the order of the Vice-Chancellor, Chhatrapti Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur passed under the proviso to Section 35(2) of the State Universities Act, 1973 rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for removal of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from its service.

2. The Vice-Chancellor had earlier rejected the proposal vide his order dated 22.3.2010, which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16350 of 2010, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2010. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Vice-Chancellor but the special leave petition was dismissed on 16.8.2010 leaving the legal issue open for consideration, if raised. As a consequence, the judgment dated 16.4.2010 passed in the aforesaid writ petition has attained finality between the parties subject to the above.

3. Paragraphs-23, 28, 29 and 30 of the judgment dated 16.4.2010 are as under:

“23. Keeping in view of the fundamental rights given to the minority institutions, Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1953 provides for a limited enquiry in the matter of approval of the orders of punishment passed by the Committee of Management of minority institutions. This enquiry is confined only to the satisfaction, that the procedure prescribed for holding enquiry has been followed. The Vice-Chancellor has a very limited discretion in the matter. Unless he is satisfied, that the procedure prescribed in the Statutes or in the Regulations for prescribing punishment has been followed, he will not enter into the other issue such as the validity of the Committee of Management, the nature of the charges, proportionality etc. In such cases, the Vice-Chancellor must remind himself that he has limited powers of approval and must allow the minority institutions to regulate its own administration and should be free to exercise the discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of the teachers. The word ‘recognition’ is defined in the law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar II Edn. Reprint 2007 (1627) to imply something more than acquiescence, something done by the Government as for instance by expeditious of service, Jodi etc. Mere collection of road cess is not recognition. Section 78 (4) of the Indian Evidence Act uses the word recognition to the proof of official documents and which means formal acknowledgement as conveying approval or sanction.

28. On the aforesaid opinion, we are of the view that the Vice-Chancellor has not only acted illegally and has erred in exercise of his statutory powers in refusing to exercise his powers under Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973, but that he has also violated the fundamental rights of the Christ Church College Society, Kanpur, a Christian Minority Society, to establish and administer the educational institution guaranteed under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India.

29. The petitioners have made out the grounds taken in the writ petition and have established that the present case is an exception to the general rule of relegating the petitioner to avail alternative remedies provided under the Act.

30. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Vice-Chancellor, Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur dated 22.3.2010 is set aside. The order shall not be given effect to. The Vice-Chancellor will reconsider the report of the Governing Body of the Christ Church College, Kanpur vide its proposal dated 25.2.2010 alongwith material produced therewith for approval of the termination order strictly in accordance with the powers vested in him under Section 35 (2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973. He will consider the matter afresh in accordance with the observations and directions made by us preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.”

4. The relevant extract of the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.8.2010 referred above is being quoted hereinbelow :

“After