ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Dr. Poonia has been heard at length so also Shri Bagadia. In the fitness and for the purpose of assisting the Court on factual matters Shri Bagadia pointed out that respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 6 have filed affidavits and denied the allegations made by petitioner Dr. Poonia against them. Dr. Poonia placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 67/97 (For Preliminary Hearing) Narinder Singh Poonia Vs. Mahendrasingh Sodha and others, which has been decided on 24-2-97 and submitted that when he appealed to the Supreme Court in view of Article 32 of Indian Constitution, Supreme Court observed in his favour and permitted petitioner Dr. Poonia to file a writ petition afresh in this High Court for the purpose of getting his grievance adjudicated in view of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. He submitted that in view of the said observations of the Supreme Court, Dr. Poonia is entitled now to make a prayer to this Court for adjudicating his grievances which have been mentioned by him in this petition. 2. Dr. Poonia submitted that he has been appointed as "Professor" by respondent No. 6-Devj Ahilya University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' for convenience) as a candidate for direct recruitment to such post and, therefore, either he can be continued in service or dismissed if it can be done legally but in no case he can be "demoted". He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Shrivastava Vs. Vikram University and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1694 . In the said judgment Supreme Court held that Readers, Professors promoted under merit promotion scheme form a distinct class from cadre employees, namely direct recruited Readers, Professors, Supreme Court further held that direct recruit and promotee Readers and Professors cannot be treated equally for the purpose of seniority and promotion. Fixing inter se seniority between them on basis of continuous officiation would be illegal. He pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the M.P. Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam (22 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for convenience) there is only one source of recruitment of University teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated, even that source is by way of direct recruitment. He pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the M.P. Vishwavidhyalaya Adhiniyam (22 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for convenience) there is only one source of recruitment of University teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated, even that source is by way of direct recruitment. If that is so, and if under merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission which was adopted by the University, and departmental candidate is to be promoted, he would be so promoted de hors Section 49 and would obviously be an excadre Reader or Professor as the case may be. Placing reliance on these observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava's case. Dr. Poonia submitted that he was appointed to the post of Professor as a directly recruited candidate and, therefore, respondent No. 6 was not entitled to demote him. He submitted that the act of demoting him committed by the University through its concerned officers is bad in law and, therefore, the said order passed by University needs to be quashed by issuing appropriate writ. 3. Shri Bagadia submitted that a writ petition was filed in this Court bearing No. MP. 1926/92 which was decided on 20-10- 94 and in the judgment and order deciding the said petition this Court passed following order in last sentences of the judgment and order. For the purpose of deciding this matter the said sentences need to be quoted :-- "In case no decision is rendered within a period of three months from today, the petitioner shall be free to approach this Court for necessary directions. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dismissed but without any order as to costs." 4. By quoting this Shri Bagadia submitted that the averments made in the writ petition in Paragraph 7 has to be understood. If that is done, it leads to disclosure of an information that an appeal is pending before "Kuladhipati" of University. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dismissed but without any order as to costs." 4. By quoting this Shri Bagadia submitted that the averments made in the writ petition in Paragraph 7 has to be understood. If that is done, it leads to disclosure of an information that an appeal is pending before "Kuladhipati" of University. Shri Bagadia advancing the arguments further submitted that it was for the petitioner either to make an appeal to the Kuladhipati of the University making a prayer to him for deciding his representation challenging the said order of demotion or to submit an application before this Court making a prayer to the Court that some order be passed in context with the said judgment and order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1926/92. He submitted that it was for the petitioner to make a prayer to the Court to pass appropriate order by pointing out that Kuladhipati of the University did not decide the representation which was presented before him by the petitioner. Shri Bagadia submitted that since 20-10-1994 the petitioner was sitting silent and, therefore, he looses all credence for the purpose of making the prayer to this Court for the purpose of issuing an appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing the said order of demoting him. Dr. Poonia submitted that after the said order was passed by this Court on 20-10-94, he presented a fresh representation to Kuladhipati dated 22-10-94 but even that is not decided. He further submitted that the said representation has not been even acknowledged. Dr. Poonia submitted that when the said representation has not been acknowledged, it has not been decided, he has been left with no alternative but to make a prayer to this Court for quashing the said order of demotion as illegal. 5. Supreme Court while deciding the above said petition filed by petitioner Dr. Poonia observed :-- "We do not propose to entertain the Writ Petition under Art. 32 here. No doubt the petitioner is right in contending that filing an application under Art. 32 is a fundamental right and in an appropriate course the Court would do the same. The Court has adopted the principle of directing the parties to avail of the remedy under Art. 226 which is equally efficacious and seek the adjudication therein. No doubt the petitioner is right in contending that filing an application under Art. 32 is a fundamental right and in an appropriate course the Court would do the same. The Court has adopted the principle of directing the parties to avail of the remedy under Art. 226 which is equally efficacious and seek the adjudication therein. In case the party is unable to secure the relief, sought for, the remedy always will be open to approach this Court under Art. 136. Under those circumstances, we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to have his right adjudicated by the High Court under Art. 226. Liberty is given to file the writ petition afresh and seek the remedy in the High Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above liberty. We have not expressed any opinion on merits." 6. In view of these observations of the Supreme Court petitioner Dr. Poonia has submitted that now he is entitled to seek a relief in the nature of appropriate writ of this Court. Shri Bagadia submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief of a writ on account of the laches on his part. He submitted the order of the Supreme Court quoted supra does not mean that this Court should grant a writ to the petitioner in view of Art. 226. He submitted that petitioner Dr. Poonia is responsible for delay in getting his representation decided from Kuladhipati and, therefore, he is not entitled to seek a relief in the nature of writ as prayed by him by way of this petition. 7. This Court does not find any laches on the part of petitioner Dr. Poonia, because when M.P. No. 1926 of 1992 was decided on 20-10-94, immediately petitioner Dr. Poonia presented a representation to Kuladhipali. It is to be understood that Kuladhipati is the highest authority in the world of University and in that context Dr. Poonia happens to be not more than a professor. When he has submitted a representation to Kuladhipati and there is no decision in that context what boldness a professor can have to do something more. So far as petitioner Dr. Poonia is concerned he is already in hot water on account of the exchange of letters in between him and other officers of the University in respect of the allegations and counter allegations. So far as petitioner Dr. Poonia is concerned he is already in hot water on account of the exchange of letters in between him and other officers of the University in respect of the allegations and counter allegations. Apart from that, had there been a decision in context with the presentation submitted by petitioner Dr. Poonia to Kuladhipali, there would have been a communication to the office of the Vice- Chancellor and as Vice-Chancellor is a party in this petition there would have been spontaneously information about that. This squarely removes the hurdle put-forth by Shri Bagadia by pointing out that in the present petition Kuladhipati has not been impleaded as party. As this Court understands the meaning of the order of the Supreme Court quoted supra which indicates that Dr. Poonia's writ petition should be decided on merits. If this Court finds that he is entitled to get a writ for the purpose of getting a relief, he is entitled to get it. If the law permits and this Court finds it proper to issue such writ in his favour, for quashing the order by which he has been demoted from the post of Professor to the post of Reader, there is no reason as to why such writ should not be granted in his favour. 8. As observed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Shrivastava's case (supra) and as indicated by the appointment order of Dr. Poonia coupled with an agreement which has been brought to existence by the University for its safety, Dr. Poonia has been recruited directly to the post of Professor. The said agreement is available for perusal from the record of W.P. No. 2071 of 2000 which is being decided today. The said agreement has embodied a proviso which would be restricting the activities of Dr. Poonia and which would be putting some fetters on him. So far as his behaviour in the University Premises as a Professor is concerned, it does not provide any provision to demote him for his misconduct or for his culpabale default. That proviso needs to he quoted verbatim its proviso to Clause 4 of the said agreement. It reads as follows :-- "That after confirmation, the University shall continue the executant's services in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-.... That proviso needs to he quoted verbatim its proviso to Clause 4 of the said agreement. It reads as follows :-- "That after confirmation, the University shall continue the executant's services in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-.... 2500 : Provided that no increment of the executant shall be withheld or postponed save by a resolution of the executive council on reference made to it by the Kulapati after the executant has been given sufficient opportunity to make his written representation and the same has been duly considered by the Kulapati." At this juncture it would be necessary to quote Clauses 10 and 11 of the said Agreement. Clause 10 provides that the executant shall abide by the code of conduct as may be determined by the University from time to time. Clause 11 provides : "After confirmation, the service of the executant can be terminated only on the following grounds :-- (a) Misconduct. (b) Wilful neglect of duty. (c) Permanent mental or physical unfitness to be determined by a medical Board constituted by the Executive Council. (d) Breach of any of the terms of the contract. (e) Abolition of the post. (f) Conviction in a Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude 9. Thus, an action can be taken against the petitioner Dr. Poonia in view of the terms and conditions coupled with his appointment indicated by the order of his appointment and by the agreement which has been executed between petitioner Dr. Poonia and University. There is absolutely no provision of demoting him. 10. The question arises whether this Court should grant the writ as prayed for by petitioner Dr. Poonia, though a representation is pending before the Kuladhipati. According to submissions of Shri Bagadia this Court be pleased not to grant him a writ as prayed by him and as prayed by Dr. Poonia, petitioner, this Court be pleased to grant such a writ in his favour. The question arises as to for how many days, how many months and how many years a poor litigant should wait for the decision of his representation which has been filed before a statutory authority according to statutory provisions ? As the record shows Dr. Poonia has now entered in a second round of litigation in this Court. He has prayed to the Supreme Court also for an order in view of Art. 32. As the record shows Dr. Poonia has now entered in a second round of litigation in this Court. He has prayed to the Supreme Court also for an order in view of Art. 32. After M.P. No. 1926/92 was decided on 20-10-94, immediately on 22-10-94 he has submitted a representation to the Kuladhipati. As there is no communication even to the office of the Kulapati (Vice-Chancellor) of the University, in such situation one will have to presume that no decision is likely to be taken on the said representation by Kuladhipati in reasonable time. Once this Court has given direction to Kuladhipati while deciding M.P. No. 1926/92 by putting up a specific period for deciding the said representation. It seems that the said direction has not brought any result and again Dr. Poonia is back to the arena of the battle of litigation before this Court. Today his other three writ petitions are to be decided. It means that he is in the midst of multiple litigations. May be on account of his own conduct or may be on account of fault of the officers of the University. But the fact remains that these petitions are to be decided on merits and the petitioner should be permitted to get away from the arena of battle of litigations before he retires on 31-12-2000. 11. Apart from that it is the bounden duty of Court to quash the order which is illegal. What is illegal ab initio cannot be permitted to survive in its such existence. It needs to be quashed if it is brought to the notice of this Court and by this petition Dr. Poonia has done so and has prayed for grant of an appropriate writ. Therefore, this Court allows his petition and quashes the order by which he has been demoted by respondent No. 6 from the post of Professor to which was directly recruited to the post of Reader. The University would be at liberty to take an appropriate action for his alleged default and alleged misconduct. Because when a person is directly recruited as "Professor" and there is no provision to demote him to the post of Reader as indicated by his appointment order, he cannot be demoted to the post of "Reader". No such action can be taken against such professor in such fashion in the absence of term in appointment order or contract. Because when a person is directly recruited as "Professor" and there is no provision to demote him to the post of Reader as indicated by his appointment order, he cannot be demoted to the post of "Reader". No such action can be taken against such professor in such fashion in the absence of term in appointment order or contract. It is necessary to point out that Dr. Poonia is entitled to get the arrears of pay from the date when he has been so demoted to the post of Reader til! this date and that amount would be decided by the Executive Council in accordance with the statute, ordinance, rules. This Court hopes that the Executive Council would take a decision in that context without being influenced by anything which is not relevant to the subject discussed. It be also decided expeditiously within three months. In case of injustice Dr. Poonia is at liberty to move a fresh writ petition and is at liberty to move a fresh representalion to the Kuladhipati also. Thus, writ of Certiorali is granted in favour of petitioner. 12. This does not mean that Dr. Poonia, petitioner, is entitled to get reinstatement by itself. A criminal case is pending against him and in that context he has been suspended and in that context there is a writ petition, pending for decision before this Court which is likely to be decided today after decision of this writ petition on merits. The prayer made by petitioner Dr. Poonia for extra salary, interest, compensation in the prayer clause of this petition, stands dismissed in view of the pendency of the said criminal case and resultant action taken by the University against him. If he get acquitted without blame in the said criminal case/prosecution, he would be entitled to move a fresh petition in that context again. 13. Writ Petition allowed.