JUDGMENT : ANJANI KUMAR, SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24th May 1993 passed by the Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') whereby representation of one Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla Junior Clerk u/s 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Audyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') has been allowed and the order dated 18th December 1991 passed by the University passed in favour of the petitioner has been quashed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on temporary basis by the order dated 18th August, 1981 issued by the Director of University. The aforesaid order shows that the Vice Chancellor appointed petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-320 and terms and conditions set out in the order and condition No. (iv) thereof reads as under: (iv) Your services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason after giving proper notice as per rules. 3. By me order dated 16th November, 1981 the petitioner vv; G informed that his services are no longer required and he will be pod one month's salary in lieu of one month' notice which he may collect from the Professor and Head of Department of Crop Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. Against this order petitioner filed writ petition No. 6986 of 1982 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding University to continue to pay salary from November, 1981 onwards. On 11th June, 1982 this Court passed interim mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary or to show-cause. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University informing that by the order dated 16th November, 1981 the petitioner has been terminated and therefore, there was no occasion for payment of salary. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 18th August, 1982. The petitioner thereafter represented his matter before the Board of Management of the University under Statute 3(d)(II) (Chapter XXI) of the Statutes of the University (hereinafter to referred to as the 'Statute') praying for recall of the order dated 16th November, 1981. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 18th August, 1982. The petitioner thereafter represented his matter before the Board of Management of the University under Statute 3(d)(II) (Chapter XXI) of the Statutes of the University (hereinafter to referred to as the 'Statute') praying for recall of the order dated 16th November, 1981. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 30th June, 1984 considered the aforesaid representation and resolved that fresh appointment may be given to the petitioner and he may be placed far away from the Head Office like, Bundelkhand etc. Consequently University issued an order dated 17th July, 1984 appointing petitioner on the post of Store-Keeper-Cum-clerk under the K.V.K. Scheme at Jhansi. The letter of appointment contains the condition that his appointment is terminable at any time without assigning any reason after giving notice as per rules. It also provided that in case offer was acceptable on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the petitioner may report for duty to the Director (Extension) within 15 days. The petitioner un-conditionally accepted the aforesaid offer and joined his duties pursuant to the appointment letter dated 17th July, 1984. He continued to work but after a few years, made a representation before the Chancellor of the University u/s 23 of the Act against order dated 16th November, 1981, resolution dated 30th June, 1984 of the Board of Management and fresh appointment order dated 17th July, 1984 contending that he was illegally Terminated therefore, instead of treating him a fresh appointee, he should have been treated to have been reinstated with full backwages and other consequential relief. The Chancellor by the order dated 26th May, 1990 rejected representation of the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable since he could file a Review Petition before the Board of Management under Statute 3 (d) (ii) [Chapter XXI] of the Statutes of the University. Accordingly the petitioner filed a review petition before the Board of Management dated 25th June, 1990. The Estate and Administrative Officer of the University put up a note before the Board of Management dated 14th September, 1991 mentioning the factual position and observing that appropriate orders may be passed on review petition. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 14th September, 1991 considered the review petition and approved the proposal. The Estate and Administrative Officer of the University put up a note before the Board of Management dated 14th September, 1991 mentioning the factual position and observing that appropriate orders may be passed on review petition. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 14th September, 1991 considered the review petition and approved the proposal. The University issued the order dated 18th December, 1991 providing that in continuation of his earlier services, the petitioner is reinstated with effect from 17th November, 1981 and would be entitled to the salary with effect from 17th November, 1981 to 16th July, 1984 and all other benefits. The petitioner was directed to be paid salary for the intervening period against the vacant post of Typist in the Horticulture Research Station, Hazratpur Scheme carried out by the University. Sri Shukla who was working as Junior Clerk in the University being adversely affected by the order dated 18th December, 1991 filed a representation dated 17th June, 1992 before the Chancellor u/s 23 of the Act which has been allowed by the Chancellor vide order dated 24th May, 1993 impugned in the present writ petition. 4. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chancellor erred in law by observing that the writ petition against the order of termination dated 16th November, 1981 had already been dismissed on 18th August, 1982, it was not open to the University to recall that order and treating the petitioner as has continued in service which has the effect of making termination order dated 16th November, 1981 non est. He further contended that since he was reinstated by the order of Board of Management there was no occasion for the Chancellor to nullify that order only on the basis that against the order of termination, writ petition No. 6966 of 1982 was already dismissed. He further contended that Before the University, the respondent No. 3 was not a party at any stage either when the petitioner was terminated or when he was appointed afresh or when the order of reinstatement was passed by the authorities of the University and therefore, at the instance of respondent No. 3, representation u/s 23 of the Act could not have been entertained by the Chancellor, Hence the order impugned is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. 6. Sri R.G. Padia, representing the Chancellor supported the order passed by the Chancellor and contended that the petitioner having been appointed afresh pursuant to the order dated 17th July, 1984, it was not open to him to re-agitate the issue after such a long time and the entire exercise at the behest of the University was not in conformity to the statutory provisions, therefore, the order of the Chancellor is absolutely correct. 7. From the facts as narrated above, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as Junior Clerk in the University. He had no right to continue and therefore, termination order dated 16th November 1981 on the ground that his services were no longer required, could not have been said to be erroneous or illegal in any way. However, after termination of his services, he filed writ petition No. 6986 of 1982 claiming salary from November, 1981 onwards without disclosing the fact that he has been terminated by the order dated 16th November, 1981. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court by means of a counter affidavit filed by the University. The petitioner moved an amendment application challenging termination order dated 16th November, 1981. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 18"1 August, 1982. No formal order was passed on the amendment application since the writ petition itself was dismissed, hence all applications pending therein also would stand dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Board of Management wherein he requested to revoke termination order dated 16th November, 1981 and allow back wages to the petitioner. Instead, 3oard of Management permitted University to appoint the petitioner afresh and that too at place away from the Head Office. Consequently the appointment letter dated 17th July, 1984 was issued by the University appointing the petitioner as a fresh candidate and posting him at Jhansi on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The relevant conditions of the appointment letter are reproduced below: (iii) His appointment under the University will be considered to be a fresh appointment and you will not be entitled to any travelling and/or conveyance allowance for joining the post. (iv) His services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason after giving proper notice as per rules. 8. (iv) His services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason after giving proper notice as per rules. 8. The letter further states specifically that in case offer of appointment is acceptable to the petitioner on terms and conditions mentioned therein, he should report for duty to the Director (Extension). The petitioner accepted the aforesaid offer unconditionally and reported for duty. He kept silence for a few years. It has not been stated as to when he exactly represented to Chancellor u/s 23 of the Act but the same appears to have been filed sometimes in the year, 1989. The Chancellor rejected the same vide order dated 26,n May, 1990 observing that the petitioner has a remedy of filing review petition before the Board of Management and therefore, his representation u/s 23 of the Act is not maintainable. Thereafter the petitioner filed review petition before the Board of Management. Though the Estate and Administrative Officer did not submit any proposal except of placing various facts and requesting the Board to take appropriate decision, yet the resolution passed by the board is as under: After considering the facts stated in the proposal under consideration, the Board of Management approves it. 9. Though the Estate and Administrative Officer did not submit any proposal except of placing various facts and requesting the Board to take appropriate decision, yet the resolution passed by the board is as under: After considering the facts stated in the proposal under consideration, the Board of Management approves it. 9. In order to find out as to what proposal was accepted by the Board, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the note submitted by the Estate and Administrative Officer with the approval of the Vice Chancellor: Jh Vh- ih- nwcs] dfu"B fyfid dh lsok;s rRdkyhu dqyifr egksn; ds vkns'kkuqlkj fnukad 16-11-81 dks lekIr dj nh x;h FkhA blds ckn Jh nqcs dh lsok lekfIr @ fu;qfDr dk ekeyk izcU/k eaMy dh cSBd fnukad 30-6-84 es fopkjkFkZ izLrqr fd;k x;k A izcU/k eaM+y ds vkns'kkuqlkj Jh nqcs dh uo fu;qfDr dfu"B fyfid ds in ij vkns'k la[;k &3115&18 fnukad 17-7-84 dks dj nh xbZ A Jh nqcs us uofu;qDr ds fo:) iwoZ lsokvks ds dze es ojf"Brk dks cjdjkj j[krs gq, lewy osru ds lkFk cgky fd;s tkus gsrq izR;kosnu egkefge dqykf/kifr egksn; ds fopkjkFkZ izLrqr fd;k x;k A dqykf/kifr egksn; ds lfpo us i=kad bZ- 4130@th-,l-&18&th-,l-&23@89&11 fnukad 26-5-90 }kjk fu.kZ; fn;k fd izcU/k eaM+y ds fu.kZ; fnukad 30-6-84 ftlds vuqikyu es 17-7-84 ds vkns'k ls izfrosnd dh uo fu;qfDr dh xbZA ij dqykf/kifr fopkj ugh dj ldrs A bl ij iquZfopkj izcU/k e.May gh dj ldrh gSA vr% izfrosnu izcU/k e.May ds le{k iquZfopkj djus gsrq izfrosnu izLrqr dj ldrk gSA Jh nqcs 25-6-90 us izR;kosnu nsdj fuosnu fd;k gS fd mUgs lsok lekfIr dh vof/k fnukad 17-11-81 ls 16-7-84 rd lewy osru ,oa vU; ykHkks ds lkFk cgky djus ds vkns'k nsus dh d`ik djs A ftlls U;k; fey lds A Jh nqcsa }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu layXu gSA vr% izcU/k e.May ls vuqjks/k gS fd Jh nqcs ds ekeys ij mfpr vkns'k nsus dh d`ik djs A 10. Therefore, from record it does not appear that there existed any proposal, particularly that the petitioner should be reinstated with effect from 17th November, 1981 with all consequential benefits. Therefore, from record it does not appear that there existed any proposal, particularly that the petitioner should be reinstated with effect from 17th November, 1981 with all consequential benefits. Neither the said fact as such was proposed by the Estate and Administrative Officer nor any other material was placed before the Court that any such proposal existed and submitted by any other authority and in the absence thereof we do not find any justification for the University to issue order dated 18th December, 1991 purporting to have been issued pursuant to the order dated 14th September, 1991 and directing the University to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with effect from 17th November, 1981. The said order of the University in our view is based on a non-est resolution in the absence of any proposal with reference thereof the University issued the order dated 18th December, 1981. Since granting of reinstatement with all benefits to the petitioner with effect from 17th November, 1981 would likely to affect the seniority of all the employees who were appointed between 17th November, 1981 to 17th July, 1984, one of such employee, respondent No. 3, who was aggrieved by the order dated 13th November, 1991 preferred representation before the Chancellor. Tie chancellor in these circumstances was justified in considering various orders passed by the authorities of the University from time to tin e. They had given occasion to the Chancellor to consider validity of first of all "of the order dated 16th November, 1981 whereby the petitioner was terminated. He being the temporary employee had no right to continue in service and therefore, ex facie Counsel for the petitioner could not show any error or illegality in the order of termination dated 15th November, 1981. However, he mainly stressed upon the resolution of the Board of Management passed on 14th September, 1991 and the consequential order passed by the University dated 18th December, 1991 and contended when the authorities themselves have treated said order a nullity, there was no occasion for the Chancellor to take a different view. However, we do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid contention. The petitioner was rightly terminated on 16th November, 1981 by the competent authority. Concealing this fact, he came up before this Court and filed a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus commanding for payment of salary since 17th November, 1981. However, we do not find ourselves to be in agreement with the aforesaid contention. The petitioner was rightly terminated on 16th November, 1981 by the competent authority. Concealing this fact, he came up before this Court and filed a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus commanding for payment of salary since 17th November, 1981. The University put in appearance by filing counter affidavit annexing copy of the termination order and contended that the petitioner having been terminated the question of payment of salary would not arise. Petitioner thereafter filed amendment application challenging the termination order and writ petition was ultimate y dismissed on 18th June, 1982. It is true that the record does not show that the amendment application was allowed. But effect of dismissal of the writ petition would be that all applications pending therein would stand dismissed. That being so, and there is nothing to show that the petitioner pressed his application for amendment, it would be deemed that he did not press his case against the order of termination though it came to his notice. He thereafter filed an appeal before the Board of Management whereby Board of Management vide resolution dated 30th June, 1984 decided to appoint him afresh and that too outside the head office. The resolution dated 30th June, 1984 attained finality and pursuant thereof appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 17th July, 1984 on certain terms and conditions as already stated above which were accepted by the petitioner and he joined duty. He thereafter continuously worked for a few years. Subsequent resolution passed by the Board of Management after about 10 years, i.e. 1991 does not contain any reason and also does not show as to what proposal was as accepted or approved. In the absence of any specific proposal we do not from any justification for the University to issue letter dated 18th December, 1991 treating the petitioner as reinstated with all consequential benefits with effect from 17th November, 1981 and the said order appears to be wholly illegal based on non-est facts. The very foundation in our view did not exist. 11. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Chancellor has rightly allowed the representation filed by respondent No. 3 and set aside the order passed by the University dated 18th December, 1991. We do not see any reason to interfere with it. The very foundation in our view did not exist. 11. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Chancellor has rightly allowed the representation filed by respondent No. 3 and set aside the order passed by the University dated 18th December, 1991. We do not see any reason to interfere with it. Counsel for the petitioner however vehemently contended that once his review petition was allowed it must be deemed to have been accepted in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner. We are of the view that no review was maintainable before the Board of Management and it should not have entertained such application after such a lapse of time particularly when its earlier resolution had already acted upon without any prejudice and objection by the petitioner. 12. The Supreme Court in Management of Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe (R) and Another Vs. S.B. Gupta and Another, AIR 2005 SC 3458 observed: Having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment order and allowed the period for which he was appointed to have been lapsed by efflux of time, he is not permitted to turn his back and say that the appointment was dehors the Rules or the terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment, were not legally valid. 13. In the result we do not find any error committed by the Chancellor. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any provision that such review could have been entertained by the Board ct Management at any point of time irrespective of any length of time. There is another aspect of the matter that if the Board of Management intended to consider a review petition after a long time particularly when for the intervening period certain rights and benefits have already accrued to some other employee and the decision, if any, taken by the authorities on review if likely to affect any such person, it was incumbent upon it not to consider and entertain review petition without giving opportunity to such affected persons. In the case of D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and Others Vs. In the case of D. Ganesh Rao Patnaik and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, AIR 2005 SC 4321 it was held as a principle of law, an administrative body while seeking to review its earlier decision must provide opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected by such a decision. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the respondent No. 3 and therefore, the decision of the Board of Management on the petitioner's review application could not have been sustained being in violation of principles of natural justice. 15. We also required the learned Counsel for the parties to place relevant statutes before the Court enabling Board of Management to exercise power of review against its earlier decision. Learned Counsel for the parties could not place any provision contained in the statute empowering Board of Management to exercise such power of review. It is interesting to note that the petitioner instead of relying upon any provision of Statute, sought to refer Chancellor's order dated 26th May, 1990 whereby representation filed by the petitioner was rejected observing that he may if so advised, file a review petition before the Board of Management. In the absence of any such provision of review under the Statute, the order of Chancellor cannot confer any such Jurisdiction Section 28(r)(d)(ii) referred to by the Chancellor in his order dated 26th May, 1990 as such has no application authorizing Board of Management to entertain review petition in the present case in as much as the aforesaid provision is applicable where the order of punishment is passed by the Vice-Chancellor or Board of Management and against such order, power of review has been conferred upon such authority. In the present case, neither the order of termination dated 16th November, 1981 nor the resolution dated 30th June, 1984 nor the order of the University dated 17th July, 1984 can be said to be an order of punishment and therefore, the aforesaid provision has no application to the present case. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the order of the Chancellor allowing the representation of the respondent No. 3 needs no interference since it has revoked an illegal order and any interference with the order of Chancellor shall result in revival of an earlier illegal order of Board of Management. 16. 16. In the totally of me circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.