JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by the learned Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No. 1 University.
2. The matter has been decided by the learned Vice-chancellor on the presumption that the Committee of Management which had passed the order of suspension and termination against the respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass such orders as the dispute with regard to the Committee of Management is pending in the Court. Whatever may be the legal position in this respect, the fact remains that the petitioner Committee of Management is in effective control of the College and this fact has not been denied by the respondents. More so, the learned Vice-Chancellor has placed considerable emphasis on the validity and sanctity of the suspension order rather than the termination order.
3. We are of the considered opinion that as the termination order had been passed, the suspension order has lost its sanctity and the learned Vice-Chancellor should not have placed such emphasis on the issue of suspension but should have considered the validity of the termination order on merit since the Committee of Management is in effective control of the College.
4. Thus in view of the above and after hearing Sri Ravi Kiran Jain learned senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 we set aside the order dated 14.2.2005 and remand the case back to the learned Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2. Both the parties are directed to be appear before the Vice-Chancellor on 17.3.2005 and file the documents on which they desire to place reliance. The Vice-Chancellor shall then fix an early date for hearing the parties and pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the said date.
5. As an interim measure, the Vice-Chancellor shall also decide as to whether the respondent No. 2 is entitled to function or not.
6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.