Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 1305 of 1996 and 1872 of 1997, filed by the Punjab University, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the University). In both these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. Regular Second Appeal No. 1305 of 1996 has arisen from civil suit filed by respondent-Satinder Parkash Srivastava against the University through its Registrar challenging the order of termination of his service dated 7.2.1966 and seeking some other reliefs regarding the disbursement of his pay etc., which was decreed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.1989. Regular Second Appeal No. 1872 of 1997 has arisen from civil suit filed by respondent-B.K.Dev against the University through its Registrar challenging the orders dated 19.11.1984 and 30.9.1985, whereby he had been denied the protection of his pay after being restored to his original cadre of Clerks and the promotion from the date when his junior was promoted. This suit was also decreed by Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment and decree dated 9.9.1991. 3. Against both the aforesaid judgments and decrees, the University filed the two separate appeals through its Registrar. In the case of Satinder Parkash Srivastava, appeal was filed on 30.3.1989 and in the case of B.K. Dev, the appeal was filed on 31. 10.1991. 4. During the pendency of the appeals, both the respondents moved separate applications for dismissal of the appeals on the ground that the appeals preferred by the University through its Registrar without a resolution passed by the Senate authorising the Registrar to file those appeals were not maintainable as the Registrar of the University was not competent to file the appeal without any specific resolution having been passed by the Senate. The first appellate court, following a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Punjab University v. Tilak Raj Dorga, (1991-1)99 P.L.R. 531, allowed the applications filed by the respondents and dismissed both the appeals preferred by the University while holding that the Registrar, no doubt, represent the University in all legal proceedings, but it does not mean that he enjoys the authority to institute any suit, appeal or any other legal proceedings at his own. The decision to initiate any legal proceeding has to be taken by the authority competent to do so and thereafter in such proceedings, for or against the University, the Registrar would represent the University. It was held that Section 21 of the Punjab University Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorises the Registrar to represent the University in Court, in cases in which the University through lawfully passed resolution of the Senate decided to sue or to file an appeal. Since in both the cases, the appeals were filed by the University through its Registrar without there being any resolution passed by the Senate to prefer an appeal, therefore, the appeals filed by the Registrar were held to be incompetent and were accordingly dismissed by the first appellate Court vide two separate judgments and decrees. Against those judgments and decrees, the instant two Regular Second Appeals have been filed. 5. Shri Anupain Gupta, learned counsel for the University, submits that against the judgment passed by this Court in Tilak Raj Dogras case (supra), the University preferred S.L.P. before the Hon ble Apex Court, which was dismissed on 5.9.1991 in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. However, the question regarding competency of the Registrar of the University to maintain appeal was left open. Learned counsel submits that subsequent, Senate of the University, on recommendation of the Syndicate, passed a resolution on 29.9.1991, which reads as follows:- "The recommendation of the Syndicate contained in item No. 23 on the agenda were read out and unanimously approved i.e.:- 23. That the Registrar/Vice Chancellor be authorised to sue or file an appeal in the Court (under Regulation 10.2 at page 32 of the P.U. Cal. Vol.1 1989) That the action taken by the Registrar/Vice Chancellor in cases where suits had already been filed or appeals preferred by them stood ratified." 6 Counsel for the appellant further submits that the matter regarding the power of the Registrar to institute the appeal again came up for consideration in Punjab University v. V.N. Tripathi and Anr., , wherein it was held that though under Section 21 of the Act, the Registrar has no power to institute any suit or appeal or any other legal proceedings at his own, but the decision has to be taken by the competent authority of the University. However, by interpreting the resolution dated 29.9.1991, it was held that any appeal filed by the Registrar, without any resolution, will be deemed to be validly instituted appeal as the action of filing of appeal by the Registrar was later on ratified by the competent authority by passing resolution dated 29.9.1991. Learned Counsel submits that in case of Satinder Parkash Srivastava, the appeal before the first appellate Court was filed by the Registrar on 30.3.19-89 i.e. prior to passing of resolution dated 29.9.1991. Thus, in that case, the action of the Registrar in filing the appeal stood ratified. However, in the case of B.K. Dev, the appeal before the first appellate Court was filed on 31.10.1991 i.e. subsequent to the passing of the resolution dated 29.9.1991. Therefore, on that date, in view of the delegation of the power by the Senate, the Registrar was having the power to file appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid factual position and the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court, the judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the appeals of the University on the aforesaid ground, are liable to be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the first appellate Court for its decision on merits. 7. On the other hand, Shri A.K. Pathania, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Though the learned counsel has not denied the factum of passing of the resolution dated 29.9.1991 and the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in V.N. Tripathis case (supra), but he submits that the resolution dated 29.9.1991 was not placed on record before the first appellate Court, therefore, the same cannot be considered. He submits that it is entirely a new plea, which can not be permitted to be taken in the Regular Second Appeal. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record of the case. 1 am of the opinion that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted to the first appellate court for its decision on merits. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record of the case. 1 am of the opinion that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted to the first appellate court for its decision on merits. The power of Registrar under Section 21 of the Act has been interpreted by this Court in Tilak Raj Dogra s case (supra) and by the Hon ble Apex Court in V.N. Tripathis case (supra) and it has been held that the Registrar of the University, no doubt, represent the University in all legal proceedings, but it does not mean that he enjoys the authority to institute any suit, appeal or any other legal proceedings at his own. The decision to initiate any legal proceeding has to be taken by the authority competent to do so and thereafter in such proceedings, for or against the University, the Registrar would represent the University. While representing the University, it would be open to the Registrar to take all incidental steps necessary for prosecution of the proceedings. but Section 21 can not be relied upon by the appellant to contend that the Registrar would be entitled to initiate the legal proceedings at his own. In V.N. Tripathis case (supra), the Hon ble Apex Court has observed that the resolution dated 29.9.1991 is in two parts. The first part deals with the delegation of the powers to the Registrar/Vice Chancellor authorising them to sue or file an appeal under the Regulation 10.2 of the regulations of the Punjab University. The other part pertains to the suits or appeals which were filed by the Registrar or the Vice Chancellor before passing of the said resolution. The first part thus deals with delegations of the powers for acts to be done in future. The second part deals with ratifying the action which had already been taken by the authorities, if the Registrar filed the appeal against the decision of the trial Court which had gone against the University through strictly speaking exceeded his authority, but his action in having filed the appeals was later on ratified by the competent authority by passing resolution dated 29.9.1991. It was held that the Registrar is a responsible officer of the University and has statutory powers under Section 21 of the Act to represent the University in legal proceedings. If the action of the Registrar of filing the appeal is ratified even though the said ratification was made very late, the same will have the effect of relating back to the time when the action was taken without authority. It was further held that despite the ratification by the competent authority, the refusal to examine the matter on merits would in no way serve the ends of justice. It would only be hindering to the technicalities rather than to be concerned with the intent and the substance. 9. In my opinion, both these appeals are covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court. In the case of Satinder Parkash Srivastava, the appeal before the first appellate Court was filed on 30.3. 1991 and after filing of this appeal, resolution dated 29.9.1991 was passed. In view of the said resolution and the interpretation given by the Apex Court, the action of the Registrar stood ratified. In case of B.K. Dev, the appeal was filed on 31.10.1991, after passing of the resolution dated 29.9.1991. The said appeal was filed under the delegated power to the Registrar authorising him to sue or file an appeal in the Court under Regulation 10.2 of the Regulation of the Punjab University. Thus, in my opinion, the dismissal of the appeals by the first appellate Court on the ground of competency of the Registrar to file the same is not sustainable, particularly when it is always in the interest of justice that the matter be decided on merits. 10. In view of the aforesaid, both the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respective first Appellate Courts for decision on merits. Since the appeals have become old, they shall be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.No order as to costs.