JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly 1. The Manager of the Committee of Management, Atarra Post Graduate College, Atarra, Distt. Banda filed this petition for quashing the order dated 16-10-90 and 9-2-90 passed by the Chancellor, Bundelkhand University and Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case is that at Atarra Post Graduate College, Atarra Distt Banda, Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur, respondent no. 3 was appointed as Principal of the College by order dated 5-10-84 with a period of probation for one year. Dr. Gaur, respondent no 3, joined the Institution on 1-11- 84. The Committee of Management of the Institution was not fully satisfied with the work of Dr. Gaur. A resolution dated 6-10-85 was passed by the Committee of Management extending the period of probation for further one year. The Committee of Management urged that the respondent failed to improve in conduct of his duties, hence a meeting was convened by the Committee of Management on the basis of an Agenda dated 4-10-86 on 11- 10-86. By the said meeting dated 11-10-86, the Committee of Management stated to have resolved for taking proceedings for termination of the service of respondent Dr. Gaur on expiry of the probationary period. The Committee of Management pleaded that in meeting of the Committee of Management held on 20th October, 1986, decision was taken for terminating the services of the respondent no. 3 Dr. Gaur on the expiry of the probationary period with the approval of the Vice Chancellor. The Committee of Management served notice for termination to Dr. Gaur and gave opportunity to him to file reply. The papers of the Committee of Management, resolution, decision of the Committee of Management was sent to the Vice Chancellor for the requisite approval for terminating the services of the respondent no. 3, Dr Gaur. The respondent no. 3 submitted his representation before the Vice Chancellor against the resolution sent to the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor by an order dated 7-12-86 accorded approval for terminating the services of the respondent no. 3. 3. The respondent no. 3 filed writ petition no. 209/7 of 1986 before this court challenging the order of the approval accorded by the Vice Chancellor terminating his services. The said writ petition was rejected on the ground that no representation under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act was filed before the Chancellor. Thus, the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 filed writ petition no. 209/7 of 1986 before this court challenging the order of the approval accorded by the Vice Chancellor terminating his services. The said writ petition was rejected on the ground that no representation under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act was filed before the Chancellor. Thus, the respondent no. 3 filed a representation under section 68 of the Act before the Chancellor on 15-2-87. A representation was also submitted by Bundelknand University Teachers Association for reviewing the order dated 7-12-86 before the Vice Cnancellor. After examing the correct facts, the Vice Chancellor cancelled his earlier order dated 7-12- 86 by order dated 29-6-87 granting approval to the termination of services of the respondent no. 3 Dr. Gaur. The said order dated 7- 12-86/29-6-87 cancelling and recalling the earlier order was passed by the Vice Chancellor on the ground that the Committee of Management had obtained the order of approval dated 7-12-86 by misrepresentation of fact. It was observed by the Vice Chancellor in his order that the Committee of Management had stated that a resolution dated 11-10-86 was passed by the Committee of Management proposing to terminate the services of the respondent no 3. The Vice Chancellor further held that in fact no meeting of the Committee of Management was held at all on 11-10-86. The Vice Chancellor recorded in his order a finding that some employee of the Institution had died on 11-10-86 and after the condolence meeting, no business or any resolution was carried on the said day. In the absence of any meeting on 11-10-86, resolving to terminate the services of the respondent no 3. the Committee of Management misrepresented before the Vice Chancellor and on the basis of the said misrepresentation had obtained the approval for terminating the services of the respondent no 3. As the Vice Chancellor himself had recalled and set aside the earlier order of approval dated 7-12- 86, the representation under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act sent by the respondent no 3 to the Chancellor had became infructuous. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 29-6-87, the Committee of Management petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12682 of 1987 before this court. The said writ petition was finally decided by the Division Bench by judgment dated 3-9-88. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 29-6-87, the Committee of Management petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12682 of 1987 before this court. The said writ petition was finally decided by the Division Bench by judgment dated 3-9-88. The Division Bench's judgment is reported in Committee of Management, Atarra Post Graduate College, Atarra, Banda v. Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, 1988 U. P. Local Bodies and Ecucational Cases 821. The Division Bench was pleased to direct that; "However it will be open to him (Vice Chancellor) to take fresh proceedings on the representation against the approval given by him initiated by the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association. This may be possible to argue that Association did not have any locus-standi to agitate the exclusion for Dr. Vishan Lal Gaur but seeing the entire circumstances, it appears to us to be proper and appropriate that Vice Chancellor may without entering into the technicality of the proper representation coming before him, look into the representation and if he finds that an untruth statement of fact was made to him about the meeting, dated 11th and 20th December, 1986 he may recall the order dated 7-12-86, granting approval " After the said judgment of the Division Bench, the Committee of Management/petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 30th September, 1988, called for a report, a copy of which has already been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 19. The Supreme Court directed that the Vice Chancellor may proceed with the enquiry subject to the condition that any decision taken by the Vice Chancellor, shall not be enforced or implemented until further orders of this court...... The Vice Chancellor is directed to submit his report before the Supreme Court as soon as the enquiry is over. 16-Rep.-1991 5. In pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court dated 22-1- 90, the Vice Chancellor after hearing the parties submitted the report dated 9-2-1990 by which the approval dated 7-12-1986 previously granted by the Vice Chancellor was cancelled. The report/order of the Vice Chancellor dated 9-2-90 has been annexed as Annexure 26 with this writ petition impugned. 16-Rep.-1991 5. In pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court dated 22-1- 90, the Vice Chancellor after hearing the parties submitted the report dated 9-2-1990 by which the approval dated 7-12-1986 previously granted by the Vice Chancellor was cancelled. The report/order of the Vice Chancellor dated 9-2-90 has been annexed as Annexure 26 with this writ petition impugned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 31st July, 1990 disposed of the Special Leave Petition with observation after receiving the report of the Vice Chancellor as under : "In our opinion, it is not for this court to appraise the fatual circumstances and come to a conclusion whether the order of the Vice Chancellor is correct or not, perticularly when it is open to the aggrieved party under Sec. 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, to have a reference made to the Chancellor of the University, who has ample powers to decide whether any decision taken by any authority or officer is incomformity with the statutes and Ordinance of the University. In view of this provision, it is open to the Committee of Management to make a reference to the Chancellor to decide the issue regarding the validity of the termination of the services of Dr. Gaur and of the order of the Vice Chancellor. We, therefore, express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the order-cum-report dated 9-2-90 of the Vice Chancellor. We leave it open to the Committee of Management to take a reference to the Chancellor regarding the correctness of this order." 6. After the dismissal of the Special leave Petition by the Honble Supreme Court, the matter was taken up by the Committee of Management/ petitioner in reference under section 68 to the Channellor. The Chancellor vide its order dated 16-10-1990 upheld the order of the Vice Chancellor recalling the previous order dated 7-12-1986 granting approval for termination of the services of the respondent no. 3, as it was obtained by misrepresentation of correct facts. Before this court in the present writ petition, the petitioner raised the following points for consideration :- (i) The Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University was influenced by the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association and the decision of the Vice Chancellor is biased; (ii) The report of the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association is biased; (iii) The Vice Chancellor acted illegally in exercising powers for review. He had no such powers in law nor he could do so as quasi judicial authority; and lastly (iv) The order of the Vice Chancellor is perverse against the evidence on record. 7. Before considering the submission about the powers of the Vice Chancellor to review his order granting the sanction for termination of the service of the respondent no. 3, it is now not open to raise this submission when the question had already been decided by the Division Bench in the writ petition filed by the petitioner Committee of Management themselves. It was categorically held that : ".........The Vice Chancellor may without entering into the technicality of proper representation coming before him, looking into the representation and if be find that an untrue statement of fact was made to him about the meetings, dated 1'th and 12th October, 1986, he may recall the order dated 7- 12- 1986, granting approval." 8. The Vice Chancellor after the order of the High Court and in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court arising out of Special Leave Petition decided the matter and held that the meetings of the Committee of Management had not been held on 11-10-86 and 20-10-86. In arriving at the conclusion, the Vice Chancellor considered in detail that the notice alleged to be sent after the meeting of 11-10-1986 was sent through Post Office by registered post on 13-10-86, 12th October, 1986 was Sunday and it was a gazetteed Holiday due to Deshehra festival. Thus the notice sent to respondent no. 3 could not have been delivered prior to 14-10-1986. 7 days time was given for filing reply to respondent no. 3 and that would have expired on 21-10-86. The required seven days time had not expired and Committee of Management alleged to have conducted a meeting on 20th October, 1986. The case of the Committee of Management that notice was given to the respondent no. 3 by hand was denied and the said denial was accepted by the Vice Chancellor The letter of Dr. Gaur was given to the Adhyaksha of the Committee of Management on 19-10-86 in which be had shown complete ignorance about the alleged meeting of 11-10-86. No reply to the informations sought by the respondent no. 3 was given by the Committee of Management. Thus, the Vice Chancellor held that the respondent no. 3 Dr. Gaur was given to the Adhyaksha of the Committee of Management on 19-10-86 in which be had shown complete ignorance about the alleged meeting of 11-10-86. No reply to the informations sought by the respondent no. 3 was given by the Committee of Management. Thus, the Vice Chancellor held that the respondent no. 3 Dr. Gaur could have given his reply till 21-10-1986. As such, no meeting of the Committee of Management could take place prior to 21-10-1986. The Vice Chancellor further observed that from the photostat copy of the notice dated 15-10-86 filed by Dr. Gaur respondent no. 3, it appears that the date of meeting was Monday dated 22-10-86. Thus, notice was found to be vague. According to days 22-10-86 fell on Wednesday and Monday feel on 20-10-86. The Vice Chancellor categorically recorded finding that in response to the notice alleged to have been sent by the Committee of Management, no reply was submitted by Dr. Gaur. Thus it was held that no meeting was held on 20-10-86. The Vice Chancellor after examining the record, recorded clear findind that a meeting on 11-10-86 was convened at 8 A.M. in the College Premises, Since, an employee of the College had died in an accident, the College had been closed after condelence and thereafter no work was transacted. In such circumstances, it was held that no meeting of the Committee of Management was held for considering the resolution about the termination of the respondent no. 3 on 11-10-86. The Vice Chancellor has observed that the Enquiry Committee consisting of Dy. Director of Education and representative of Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association who conducted the enquiry had doubted the holding of meeting on 11-10-86 and 20-10- 86. The said Enquiry Committee recorded finding that the Management Committee had been pre-planning for terminating the petitioner's services and thus evidence was manipulated accordingly. 9. The ground of the petitioner that the Vice Chancellor was under influence of the Bundelkhand University Teachers' Association, has not been substantiated by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not arrayed the Vice Chancellor by name, who decided the representation impugned in this writ petition. The allegation that the Vice Chancellor had engaged a counsel in the Supreme Court to support the order passed by him there, on account of the bias against the Committee of Management, is not substantiated. The petitioner has also not arrayed the Vice Chancellor by name, who decided the representation impugned in this writ petition. The allegation that the Vice Chancellor had engaged a counsel in the Supreme Court to support the order passed by him there, on account of the bias against the Committee of Management, is not substantiated. The vague assertion of the plea of bias is of no consequences. It is necessary that in case the plea of bias is raised clinching evidence has to be brought to the notice of the court, besides giving an opportunity to the person concerned against whom bias is pleaded. As observed already, the Vice Chancellor has been said to be biased but the Vice Chancellor by name has not been impleaded as respondent in the writ petition. Such plea of bias in absence of opportunity cannot be permitted to be raised The perusal of the order of the Chancellor clearly shows that the considered this submission of the Committee of Management and pointedly held after considering the record, representations and replies of the parties that no meeting was conducted on 11-10-86 or 20- 10-86 for considering the resolution for terminating the services of the respondent no. 3. The Chancellor also examined the question that the Vice Chancellor, who had earlier granted permission for terminating the services of the respondent no. 3, on the basis of the allegations of the Committee of Management that in meeting dated 11-10-86 and 20-10-86, the Committee of Management bad resolved to terminate the services of the respondent no 3 The Committee of Management had misrepresented before the Vice Chancellor that meeting on 11-10-86 and 20-10-86 bad been convened by the Committee of Management approving the resolution for terminating the services of the respondent no 3. It was a clear misrepresentation before the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor after examining the correct fact, arrived at the conclusion that the earlier order of permission for terminating the services of the respondent no 3 was obtained by misrepresentation of facts, the earlier order was recalled by him The Chancellor examined this aspect of the matter in his order. That controversy have already been examined. The Chancellor in his order was satisfied that the Committee of Management had obtained the order from the Vice Chancellor by misrepresenting the facts about the holding of meeting on 11-10-86 and 20-10-86. That controversy have already been examined. The Chancellor in his order was satisfied that the Committee of Management had obtained the order from the Vice Chancellor by misrepresenting the facts about the holding of meeting on 11-10-86 and 20-10-86. As already pointed out, the Vice Chancellor in his order has specifically referred to the evidence and circumstances that no meeting for the purpose of considering the resolution for termination of respondent no. 3's services could be taken on 11-10-86, as no business was conducted after the condolence resolution was passed on that date The other question about the holding of the meeting on 20th October, 1986 was also considered and negatived. 10. The submission by the petitioner's counsel that the Vice Chancellor had illegally reviewed its earlier order, was also considered by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 12682 of 1987 between the same parties and the Division Bench had held relying on 1953 (1) AER 13 and 1959 (3) AER 933 that : " .....It appears to us to proper and appropriate that the Vice Chancellor may without entering into the technicality of proper representation coming before him, looking into the representation and if he finds that an untrue statement of fact was made to him about the meeting dated 11th and 12th October, 1986, he may recall the order dated 7-12-1986, granting approval." Now this question is not open to be urged 11. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that there is no error of law, procedure or jurisdiction in the orders impugned. The writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed, and calls for no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Petition dismissed.