( 1. ) IN this intra-Court appeal preferred under section 2 (1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant has called in question the defensibility of the order dated 28-2-2007 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 19090/06.

( 2. ) THE facts which are requisite to be stated are that the appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was issued an OBC caste certificate dated 29-6-1995 under non-creamy category, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, on the base that he belongs to karmkar Lohar in the State of Bihar as well as in the State of Madhya Pradesh. As some disputes arose with regard to status of lohar caste in the State of Bihar a direction was issued by the High Court that the Lohar caste should be included in the category of Scheduled Castes. On the base of the said order the appellant was given provisional certificate on 24-2-1996, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. Against the aforesaid direction of the high Court of Patna, the State of Bihar preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court wherein their Lordships directed for grant of provisional scheduled Caste Certificate subject to decision in the SLP. Eventually the Apex court in the case of Nittyanand Sharma and another vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996 SC 2306 directed cancellation of the Scheduled Caste certificate. It was contended that by virtue of the said cancellation, the appellant was reverted to his original position meaning thereby the OBC category and the certificate granted earlier in that regard came into force.

( 3. ) AS the facts get uncurtained Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya published an advertisement on 19-2-1999 inviting applications for the post of Reader in the management Faculty. the said post was reserved for OBC candidate. the advertisement was published nation wide irrespective of the native State and not confined to the State of MP. the petitioner received the call letter for interview. A High Powered Committee constituted under section 49 (2) of the the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)conducted the interview on 6-5-2000. All certificates of the petitioner were examined under section 49 (4) of the Act. Eventually he was issued the letter of appointment dated 8-5-2000, Annexure P-5 to the writ petition, on the basis of the decision taken by the Executive Council.

( 4. ) AT this juncture, one Dr. Santosh Yadav made a complaint to the Vice-Chancellor of the RDVV about the appointment of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 in exercise of power under section 12 (3) of the Act vide annexure P-7 directed the Executive Council to reconsider his decision appointing the petitioner on the post of Reader of MBA Department. the executive Council reconsidered the matter and maintained its earlier decision, as is manifest from order dated 10-6-2005. the Chancellor without considering the decision taken by the Executive Council taken on 8-5-2005 and the affirmation thereof on 10-6-2005 issued order under section 12 (4) of the Act on 11-12-2006 annulling the decisions of the Executive Council dated 8-5-2000 and affirmation thereof dated 10-6-2005 and directed the respondent University to cancel the appointment of the appellant with immediate effect and discharge him by giving him either notice or salary in lieu thereof. It is contended that though the said order was passed on 11-12-2006, the same was communicated to the appellant on 22-12-2006. He remained on casual leave upto 23-12-2006. As he had already submitted an application for leave he proceeded on leave after service of the order dated 11-12-2006 and filed Writ Petition No. 19090/2006 (S) on 23-12-2006. the matter was listed before the Vacation Judge and it was directed to be listed on 28-12-2006. On 26-12-2006 the respondent No. 2 passed the order terminating the services of the appellant w. e. f. 23-12-2006 by giving him three months salary in lieu of notice. It is put forth