JUDGMENT :

1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order of the Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly dated 06.08.2018 by which the representation of the petitioner filed under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") has been rejected.

2. The dispute which was referred to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act was with regard to the validity/correctness of the order of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 23.09.2016 in context to interse seniority of the petitioner qua contesting private respondents No. 8 to 11 who are all teachers in the Dayanand Arya Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Moradabad affiliated to the above university.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was duly selected and recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Commission") on 28.01.1991 as Lecturer (Home Science) and was allotted the above institution. Consequently, the Committee of Management of the institution issued appointment letter to her and the petitioner joined services on 20.06.1991. Thus, she is holding a substantive post of Lecturer, Home Science at the institution w.e.f. 20.06.1991 after due selection by the Commission.

4. The contesting private respondent Nos. 8 to 11 were appointed on ad-hoc basis by the Committee of Management of the institution on their selection by the Selection Committee constituted by the institution and approvals of the University granted to their appointments on 10.10.1988, 22.02.1991, 25.02.1991, 11.03.1991 and 22.03.1991 respectively. All of them except respondent No.10 were subsequently regularized on their respective posts on different dates in June, 1992 under Section 31-C (2) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as "Commission Act") by the Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., Allahabad.

5. In view of the above respective joining of the petitioner and the contesting private respondents No. 8 to 11, the Chancellor held that as under Statute 15.08 (e) of the First Statutes of the University, the respondents are entitle to seniority from the date of their initial appointment, they are senior to the petitioner. Secondly, as the representation of the petitioner also disputes the regularization of the contesting private respondents No. 8 to 11, the challenge to the same after more than 26 years is not acceptable and the representation in that regard is barred by limitation.

6. We have heard Dr. Anupma Mehrotra, petitioner in person, Sri L.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for Chancellor, Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for University, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the Committee of Management and the Principal of the institution, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for Dr. Jolly Garg, respondent No.8 and Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel on behalf of Dr. Shobha Gupta and Dr. Shubha Goyal, respondent Nos. 9 and 10 (wrongly mentioned as respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the writ petition). No one has appeared for Dr. Vimal Sharma, respondent No.11 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.10 in the writ petition).

7. The petitioner alleges that she was shown as senior to the contesting private respondents No. 8 to 11 in the record of the institution, but in circulating the tentative seniority list on 02.04.1996, the Principal of the institution incorrectly showed her junior to these persons. Therefore, she objected to the said seniority but without considering her objections, a final seniority list was allegedly notified on 27.07.1996 without any information or copy to her. The petitioner when raised her dispute regarding interse seniority, the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 05.06.1999 informed that the said dispute can be raised by her by means of a representation before the Principal of the institution. A