IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the Management to affect the appointment or termination of services of teachers is conditioned by the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor as per the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and the relevant Government Order dated 09.05.2000.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the Committee of Management of the college concerned and Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the University.

2. Petitioners before this Court were initially engaged in a self-financed course as a Lecturer in the subject of Sociology with the approval of the Vice Chancellor vide orders dated 22.10.2003 and 19.09.2007 respectively and continued as such until the order impugned came to be passed on 24.07.2018 putting their appointment in the self finance course of the college, in abeyance.

3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Committee of Management of the college concerned was not legally authorized to pass such kind of orders without seeking prior approval from the Vice Chancellor as is indicated under Section 35(2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973'). The provisions require every appointment, according to him, and the termination of appointment as well, to be subject to the prior approval by the Vice Chancellor. He has also taken the Court to the Government Order dated 09.05.2000 to advance a submission that in the event a Committee of Management was having any complaint against the petitioners regarding their work and conduct or otherwise then such order would amount to be punitive in nature and, therefore, was also to have preceded by the approval of the Vice Chancellor.

4. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the Committee of Management, Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, that though the self finance course in question is being run by the institution but because of the number of students getting down/reduced there remained no further requirement of having two faculty members in addition to those who were already employed in the institution and so the order putting in abeyance appointment of petitioners have been passed on the principle of last come first go. He submits that in 2019 around only nine students were enrolled in the subject of Sociology and the first semester and second semester there were only 10 students and likewise in the subject of Geography there were only 24 and 25 students respectively and since a class consists of atleast 40 students, therefore, the management cannot be faulted with in putting the continuance of the petitioner's services on hold.

5. It is further argued that since the Committee of Management did not proceed to dispense with the services of the petitioner, therefore, there arose no question for seeking any prior approval from the Vice Chancellor. He submits that it would have been necessary had the Management proceeded to terminated their services. Another argument advanced by Sri Srivastava is that there were serious complaints against the petitioners regarding their act and conduct in the institution against the management inasmuch as there were other serious complaints from the students against them and therefore, the management got compelled to put in abeyance their continuance in college as teachers.

6. Sri Rohit Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the University submits that as per the Act of 1973 which is applicable to the institution in question, the services of such teachers cannot be dispensed with without prior approval of the Vice Chancellor as their appointments are also done with the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor. He further submits that since there was no proceeding drawn by the Committee of Management against the petitioners, nor there is any justification shown in the order that services of the petitioners were discontinued only for the reason that there were serious complaints, there was all the more no reason to order petitioners to sit back. It is further submitted that on the University portal that contains a dash board with details of faculty in the college does show the name of these two teachers on the roll of the faculty of the college ev