Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The issues and subject-matter in both these writ petitions are interconnected, therefore, same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Both writ petitions have been filed assailing order dated 14.8.2017 passed by Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘Chancellor’)

2. Writ Petition No. 39334 of 2017 has been filed by sole petitioner Dr. Garima Singh, challenging above order of Chancellor, whereby he has cancelled her appointment after declaring recommendation of Selection Committee dated 4.2.2015, and decision taken thereon by Executive Council in her favour, void and illegal.

3. Writ Petition No. 11105 of 2018 has been filed by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar who is aggrieved by same order of Chancellor insofar as it has rejected claim of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in Department of Education, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’).

4. In respect of Dr. Garima Singh, Chancellor has found that Selection Committee violated norms, without requisite documents submitted by petitioner, awarded marks, and also under head “Domain Knowledge and Teaching (Teaching Skills)” against maximum marks 10, it has awarded 20 which is ex facie illegal and renders selection of Dr. Garima Singh, bad.

5. Claim of Dr. Sajeev Kumar for appointment has been negatived by Chancellor on the ground that he was not selected by Selection Committee, hence, question of his appointment does not arise.

6. Since in the present case, there was lot of controversy involving allotment of marks by Selection Committee under different heads, etc., therefore, we directed University to produce selection record for our perusal and same has been produced before us in a sealed cover. We have perused the same also.

7. We may also place on record that Writ Petition No. 39334 of 2017, earlier was decided vide judgment dated 29.8.2017, and Court held that Reference made to Chancellor was barred by limitation and there was no application seeking condonation of delay, therefore, order passed by Chancellor entertaining Reference which was barred by limitation, was not legal, hence, order dated 14.8.2017 was quashed. University preferred Civil Appeal No. 20976 of 2017 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 31712 of 2017). Supreme Court allowed said appeal vide judgment dated 1.12.2017 and passed following order :

“Issue notice.

Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, appearing on caveat accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 Leave granted.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it was not necessary to file an application seeking condonation of delay before the Chancellor as observed by the High Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be said to be applicable. In exceptional circumstances, Chancellor could have entertained the petition, even beyond limitation as specifically provided in Section 68 of the Act. Reasons have been given by the Chancellor for condoning the period of limitation, 0thus the Chancellor was alive to the issue of limitation and has condoned the period of limitation; thus it was not proper for the High Court to set aside the decision of the Chancellor on that ground. Thus, the Impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be said to be sustainable and is hereby set aside.

We remit the case to the High Court to examine the case on merits as the High Court had not considered on merits whether decision of the chancellor was sustainable.

The appeal is allowed. We remit the case to the High Court to decide the case on merits. The High Court is required to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.

It is agreed to that status quo shall be observed for a period of six months during which the High Court to make an endeavor to decide the case.”