By the Court.—The petitioner was initially appointed as Registrar of the Aligarh Muslim University on 18 May 2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of Statute 5 of the Statutes of the University. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the University on 14 June 2012. A Selection Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, nominees of the Executive Council and a nominee of the Visitor was constituted. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for selection. On 7 September 2006, the Executive Council of the University had authorised the Vice-Chancellor to approve recommendations of Selection Committees on its behalf. The Vice-Chancellor issued an order on 11 January 2013 for the appointment of a Registrar in terms of the resolution of the Executive Council dated 7 September 2006. On 11 January 2013, an office memo was issued by the Deputy Registrar (Administration-NT) stating that the Vice-Chancellor, on the recommendation of the General Selection Committee and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (AMU Act), had approved the appointment of the petitioner as Registrar of the University with a tenure of five years. The action of the Vice-Chancellor would, it was stated, be reported to the Executive Council at its next meeting.

2. On 29 September 2014, the petitioner tendered his resignation as Registrar to the Vice-Chancellor. According to the petitioner, he was summoned by the Vice-Chancellor at 9.30 am on 29 September 2014 and was directed to resign from the post of Registrar. According to him, the Vice-Chancellor pulled out a piece of paper from a writing pad in his drawer, upon which the petitioner was directed to write and sign his letter of resignation. The case of the petitioner is that he tendered the letter of resignation under duress but after returning to his official residence, he was consoled by his spouse, upon which, he addressed an email at 11.26 am on 29 September 2014 to the Vice-Chancellor withdrawing his resignation. The petitioner claims that soon thereafter, he addressed a communication to the Vice-Chancellor stating that he had been forced to submit his resignation under duress which he was retracting and withdrawing. The letter is stated to have been received by the Dak Clerk of which an entry was made in the Dak register.

3. The case of the petitioner is that after the letter dated 29 September 2014 was received, the Vice-Chancellor who is impleaded as the fifth respondent, directed the Pro Vice-Chancellor (the sixth respondent) to prepare an office order recording the acceptance of the resignation. According to the petitioner, the fifth and sixth respondents got another office order prepared, in collusion, bearing the same number (D/373/PVC) as the earlier office order dated 29 September 2014 which contained two interpolations. The first was that the Vice-Chancellor had accepted the resignation of the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the AMU Act on behalf of the Executive Council and the second was the insertion of the time and date (10:45 hours on 29 September 2014) below the signature of the Pro Vice-Chancellor.

4. The petitioner challenged, among other things, the office order dated 29 September 2014 and sought a mandamus restraining the authorities from interfering with his functioning on the post of Registrar. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 19(3) of the AMU Act, which empowers the Vice-Chancellor, if he is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, to exercise any power conferred on an authority of the University by or under the Act.

5. The writ petition was filed on 7 October 2014. During the pendency of the proceedings, it emerged that the Executive Council of the University has endorsed the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the Vice-Chancellor at its meeting held on 4 October 2014. A further