JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. This case has been referred for my opinion as a consequence of difference between two learned single Judges constituting the Division Bench which had heard this matter. Brother K. P. Singh was of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed as it raised disputed questions of fact. Brother B. L. Yadav, on the other hand, was of the opinion that on the facts established on the record, the petition deserved to be allowed and appropriate reliefs granted to the petitioners. That is how, the matter was placed before me. 2. The facts material for the decision of this case have been elaborated in considerable detail by brother B. L. Yadav. It is hence not necessary to repeat the same here. The fight is between the petitioners, who claimed to be validly appointed teachers of Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Ballia (which is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasii on the one hand and the Management on the other. They claim that they had been appointed as teachers of the said institution in accordance with the prescribed procedure on a substantive basis after the necessary approval had been obtained from the Vice Chancellor of the said University. The respondent Management was however, not happy with them and consequently, it first placed the petitioners under suspension and subsequently terminated their services by means of a resolution which was assailed by them by way of representation before the Vice Chancel lor who issued a show casue notice to the Management and subsequently by means of an order dated 3- 12-1982 disapproved the purported termination orders passed by the Management against the petitioners. Despite this order the petitioners continued to be deprived of their salary as a result of the obstruction caused by the Management which insisted that the petitioners were temporary and adhoc teachers whose services have been validly terminated and that they are hence not entitled to payment of any salary, much less be treated as teachers of the institution. 3. Despite this order the petitioners continued to be deprived of their salary as a result of the obstruction caused by the Management which insisted that the petitioners were temporary and adhoc teachers whose services have been validly terminated and that they are hence not entitled to payment of any salary, much less be treated as teachers of the institution. 3. Broadly two principal questions arise for determination in this case : First, whether the petitioners were appointed on a temporary and adhoc basis whose services could be terminated without the approval of the Vice Chancellor as claimed by the Management or they were appointed in clear vacancy on a substantive basis and consequently their services could not be terminated legally without the approval of the Vice Chancellor as asserted by the petitioners ? and, Second, whether any relief can be granted to the petitioners in these proceedings ? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and given the matter anxious consideration, I am clearly of the opinion that on the facts which are not seriously disputed or which may be taken to have been established on the record, the petitioners are certainly entitled to the relief of mandamus directing the respondent to pay their salary and continue to pay the same till the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 referred to above is set aside or adjudged null and void in the suit which has already been filed by the management. I do not agree, with profound respect, with brother K. P. Singh that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petition involves disputed questions of fact. The following position may be taken to be indisputable. Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Kishore Chetan Ballia (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) of which the petitioner claim to be validly appointed teachers is a college which is affiliated to the Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. The terms and conditions of the teachers appointed to this Institution are regulated by the statutes framed under the U. P. State Universities Act. The petitioners were appointed as teachers of the said Institution. The terms and conditions of the teachers appointed to this Institution are regulated by the statutes framed under the U. P. State Universities Act. The petitioners were appointed as teachers of the said Institution. The dispute was only with regard to the nature of their initial appointment the Management contending that the appointment was purely adhoc and temporary, while the petitioners asserting that they were appointed in clear vacancies on a substantive basis in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law after regular selection and approval of the Vice Chancellor. The Management placed the petitioners under suspension, to borrow the words used in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Management, on the ground : "The petitioners were found acting against the interest of the school hence the deponent suspended them." 5. Later by means of a resolution dated 6-7-1982 the Managing Committee revoked the orders of suspension and terminated the services of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that these orders were assailed by them before the Vice Chancellor who issued show cause notices to the Management and thereafter by means of a letter dated 3-12-1982 the Registrar of the University informed the Management that the petitioners having been appointed with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, their services could not be treated to have been terminated until the requisite approval of the Vice Chancellor for such termination had been obtained. This letter is Annexure XX to the petition and the supporting assertions of fact are to be found stated in paragraph 9 of the petition. The reply to this paragraph is to be found in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit which is being extracted here for a proper appreciation of the issue : "That the contents of paragraph 9 of the petition are matters of record and require strict proof. The deponent further states that he had no knowledge of any such representation made by the petitioners. But the petitioners somehow or other managed to manipulate and obtain an order showing that the termination of their services has been disapproved by the Registrar of the University concerned." 6. No weight ought, in my opinion, to be attached to such vague and general averment. The counter affidavit was sworn on 18-3-1986, that is, over three years after the issue of the aforesaid letter dated 3-12-1982 by the Registrar. No weight ought, in my opinion, to be attached to such vague and general averment. The counter affidavit was sworn on 18-3-1986, that is, over three years after the issue of the aforesaid letter dated 3-12-1982 by the Registrar. If the Management was taking the stand that the Vice Chancellor had not disapproved the termination orders passed by it against the petitioners, the simplest thing would have been to produce some supporting document issued by the University disowning Annexure XX. Instead the Management summarily dismissed specific allegations made in paragraph 9 of the petition by an evasive reply such as is contained in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. The same applies to the reply to the specific assertion made by the petitioners that they had made representations against the purported orders of termination passed by the Management. There is no denial whatever of the said assertion. The reply is that, "the petitioners somehow or the other managed to manipulate and obtain an order............" which is far too vague and general to merit serious consideration. It is, however, not necessary to dilate on this issue further as the allegation made in paragraph 10 of the petition that the Management has filed civil suit no. 576 of 1982 challenging the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 disapproving the termination of the petitioners services has been categorically admitted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. The existence of this order thus stands admitted to the Management. 7. From the foregoing discussion, the conclusion that, right or wrong, the order dated 3-12-1982 was issued by the University disapproving the action of the Managing Committee purporting to terminate the services of the petitioners seems inescapable. Indeed as mentioned above the order has already been challenged by the Managing Committee in the civil suit referred to above. 8. So much seems to be established beyond doubt, and, to my mind, there does not exist any serious dispute between the parties about it, viz., that the Vice Chancellor has disapproved the purported termination order passed by the Management. The point of differences between the parties, to my mind, arises only as regards whether the order dated 3-12-1982 is valid and sanctioned by the applicable statutes or not. This point inevitably depends on the nature of appointment held by the petitioners. The point of differences between the parties, to my mind, arises only as regards whether the order dated 3-12-1982 is valid and sanctioned by the applicable statutes or not. This point inevitably depends on the nature of appointment held by the petitioners. If the petitioners appointment was on a substantive basis and had received the approval of the Vice Chancellor under statutes as recited in the show cause notice issued by the Registrar as well as the order dated 3-12-1982 the petitioners' services could not obviously be terminated without the approval of the Vice Chancellor as required under the first statutes framed under the U. P. State Universities Act for Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. Having given the matter a careful consideration and having perused the petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it appears to me that the issue as regards the nature of the petitioners appointment cannot appropriately be determined in these proceedings in view of the difficulties pointed out by brother K. P. Singh. There is undoubtedly serious dispute of facts on this issue between the parties. Such an issue had better be left to be decided effectively under an in-built adjudicatory mechanism provided under the U. P. State Universities Act by way of a reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the said Act. The Chancellor can also examine the correctness and validity of the order dated 3-12-82 and in that connection he can also examine the nature of appointment held by the petitioners. Alternatively, the controversy can also be determined in the civil suit No. 576 of 1982 filed by the Management provided that the challenge in those proceedings can only succeed if it is a complete nullity, i.e., there was a total lack of power in the Vice Chancellor. 9. That, however, does not automatically lead to the result that the petition must be dismissed. For in my humble view so long as the order dated 3-12-1982 is not set aside or declared void by an authority competent to determine its correctness and validity the petitioners must continue to receive their salary as teachers of the institution. 9. That, however, does not automatically lead to the result that the petition must be dismissed. For in my humble view so long as the order dated 3-12-1982 is not set aside or declared void by an authority competent to determine its correctness and validity the petitioners must continue to receive their salary as teachers of the institution. Under Part-1 of Chapter XVII of the U. P. State Universities Act laying down the condition of services of the teachers of affiliated colleges of Sumpurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, the approval of the Vice Chancellor before the dismissal, removal or termination of the services of a teacher (except where clause 4 of statute 17.04 applies), is mandatory. Clause 4 of Statute 17.04 applies only to the case of a teacher appointed in a temporary or officiating capacity and consequently the same would apply only if it is established that the petitioners were appointed in a temporary or officiating capacity. THAT issue has yet to be determined by a competent authority. For the present we have the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 which states that the petitioners were duly appointed teachers after the requisite approval had been obtained from the Vice Chancellor. The question of approval would have arisen only if the appointment of the petitioners were other than in a temporary or officiating capacity. 10. As under the scheme of the statutes the Vice Chancellor is invested with the power of according or refusing the approval where the Management proposes to dismiss, remove or terminate the services of the teachers of an affiliated college, the order dated 3-12 -1982 cannot be ignored on the mere ipsi dixit of the Management. It has to be demonstrated to be wrong and invalid before the petitioners can be deprived of their salary. If the order had been passed by an authority which had nothing to do with the appointment or termination of the services of the teachers of an affiliated institution, one could ignore it. But here the Vice Chancellor as an authority expressly designated to grant or refuse approval to the impugned action taken by the Management is purported to exercise that power. But here the Vice Chancellor as an authority expressly designated to grant or refuse approval to the impugned action taken by the Management is purported to exercise that power. It was and may still be open to the Management to have the correctness and validity of the decision of the Vice Chancellor adjudicated either by way of a reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 or by way of a civil suit (which the Management has already filed). But till the order dated 3-12-1982 is set aside or adjudged void, I do not see how the petitioners can be deprived of their salary as admittedly until the passing of the resolution of the Committee of Management, the petitioners were on the roll of teachers of the Institution. AS the order dated 3-12-1982 has been passed by the Vice Chancellor in the purported exercise of powers conferred upon him by the statutes or at least under the colour of his office, the petitioner must in my view be paid their salary until that order is set aside.' In this view the petitioners have clearly become entitled to the grant of the relief for payment of salary. For the grant of this limited relief, it would not, in my opinion be just and proper to throw out the petition on the ground that the petition involves determination of disputed questions of fact. In my opinion, the existence of the order dated 3-12-1982 disapproving the impugned action of the Management having been established beyond doubts the petitioners must be granted the relief for payment of salary until the order of the Vice Chancellor is set aside by the Chancellor under Section 68 or declared void in the civil suit filed by the Management. 11. That brings me to the issue whether the judgment in civil suit No. 221 of 1982 would operate res judicata against the Management. In view of the fact that according to the issue regarding the nature of the petitioners' appointment and the validity of the order dated 3-12-1982 ought to be left for being determined in separate proceedings indicated above, I need not answer this question. In view of the fact that according to the issue regarding the nature of the petitioners' appointment and the validity of the order dated 3-12-1982 ought to be left for being determined in separate proceedings indicated above, I need not answer this question. The same applies to the comments made by brother K. P. Singh as regards the genuineness or otherwise of the various annexures filed with the petition and the counter affidavit or even whether the affidavit of Shiv Ballabh Chaubey filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools Ballia can be used against the Management. These are all matters which can be gone into in appropriate proceedings. 12. To sum up, the petitioners ought to be granted the relief of a direction for payment of salary to the petitioners so long as the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 is not declared null and void or set aside by a competent authority/Court. To that extent I am inclined to agree with brother B. L. Yadav. With respect, I disagree with brother K. P. Singh that the petition should be dismissed. I would, however, leave the issues relating to the nature of the petitioners appointment and correctness of the order dated 3-12-1982 to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings as indicated hereinabove. Before concluding I may notice submission which was urged before me by Sri R. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the Management with some emphasis. The contention was that Chapter XI-A of the U. P. State Universities Act on which brother B. L. Yadav has placed reliance in support of his conclusion that the duty to pay salary to the teachers of an affiliated college lies on the State Government does not apply to the present institution which is not a Degree College. I am unable to agree. The term college has been defined under Section 60-A as any college which is affiliated to or recognised by any University in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act or the statutes made thereunder and for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State Government. It was not denied by the learned counsel that the institution receives maintenance grant from the State Government. Nor was it disputed by the learned counsel that the concerned institution is a college which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. It was not denied by the learned counsel that the institution receives maintenance grant from the State Government. Nor was it disputed by the learned counsel that the concerned institution is a college which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. That being so, the provisions of Section 60-E on which brother B. L. Yadav placed reliance fully applies to the present Institution. This Court could, therefore, issue appropriate direction to the State Government for payment of the salary of the petitioners. 13. For the reasons stated above, 1 would allow the petition and direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to make the payment of the salary to the petitioners from March 1982 within such period as may be fixed by the Bench and to continue to pay this salary and other emoluments admissible in law to the petitioners treating them as teachers of the Institution until the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 3-12-1982 is set aside or declared void or the services of the petitioners are otherwise terminated in accordance with law. 14. Let the papers of this case be placed before the Bench concerned with the above opinion of mine for appropriate orders.