Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution aggrieved by the order of the Vice Chancellor of Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University dated 6.2.2008, whereby the petitioner's appointment has been declared to be illegal. Facts of the judgment appear from pleadings exchanged between the parties. The institution, Sri Mandleshwar Mahadev Pathshala, Gaura, Mehnagar, Azamgarh is a recognized institution. It receives the grant-in-aid from the State Government. The dispute relates to the year 1994. At that point of time, it was affiliated to Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University. It was then governed by the provision of U.P. State University Act, 1973 and the first Statute of the Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University framed thereunder. The Institution imparted education up to the level of Uttar Madhyama ( Intermediate level). The petitioner's case is that the Manager issued an advertisement in Hindi Daily "Dainik Devbrat" dated 29.5.1994 inviting applications from eligible persons for one post of Assistant Teacher in Modern language. The petitioner made an application for the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Selection Committee was constituted in terms of Statute 11.16 (2) of the first Statute of the University. The Selection Committee recommended the name of petitioner and his name was placed at serial number one of panel. A copy of Minutes of the Selection Committee has been enclosed by the petitioner as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. The Management issued him appointment letter on 29.6.1994 and he joined the post in question on 10.7.1994. However, he was not paid his salary and he made several representations to the authorities. A copy of representations have been enclosed along with the writ petition as annexure nos. 6 and 7 to the writ petition. When the petitioner's representations did not yield any result, he filed a writ petition no. 45676 of 2002 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 26.10.2002, issued a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide his representation. The respondent no. 3 rejected his representation by his order dated 28.4.2003. A copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure -12 to this writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed another writ petition no. 28777 of 2003. This Court, vide order dated 26.10.2002, issued a direction to the respondent no. 3 to decide his representation. The respondent no. 3 rejected his representation by his order dated 28.4.2003. A copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure -12 to this writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed another writ petition no. 28777 of 2003. In the said writ petition, this Court on 28.10.2004 directed the Vice Chancellor of Sampurna Nand University to examine as to whether the appointment of the petitioner had been made strictly in consonance of the Statutes of the University. In compliance thereof, the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order dated 6.2.2008 filed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. I have heard Sri J.J. Munir and Sri A. Azami for the petitioner and Sri Ved Vyas Misra for the University and learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Vice Chancellor in the impugned order has clearly mentioned that an inquiry was conducted in the matter and it was found that the petitioner's appointment was made in accordance with the Rules. But, it was found that there was violation of the statute as the Selection Committee was not constituted in terms of the Statute 11.24. Mr. Munir further submitted that this finding is incorrect as the Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the Statute 11.24, wherein, Mr. Uday Narain Mishra was nominated by the Vice Chancellor as an expert in the Selection Committee. He has relied on the Minutes annexed with the writ petition as annexsure-3. A certified copy of same has been produced by him during the course of argument and with consent of learned counsel for the University, it is taken on record. The averments with regard to constituting of Selection Committee has been made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The averment has been replied in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition and paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit are reproduced herein below; Para-9 of the Writ Petition:- "That, the Selection Committee which met on 25.6.1994 was duly constituted in accordance with the statute above cited and included in its quorum. The averment has been replied in paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition and paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit are reproduced herein below; Para-9 of the Writ Petition:- "That, the Selection Committee which met on 25.6.1994 was duly constituted in accordance with the statute above cited and included in its quorum. The Principal of the Institution, head of the management being Manager himself, a subject expert nominated by the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University namely Sri Udai Narain Mishra and two other members who fulfilled the statutory requirements of stature 11.16 (2) ( supra)". Para-9 of the Counter Affidavit:- "The contents of paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition are incorrect as stated. The subject expert was not nominated by the Vice Chancellor of the University". Paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit has been sworn on the basis of the record, however, neither there is any reference of the record in para-9, nor there is any document enclosed in support of the averment made in paragraph no. 9. Learned counsel for the University, Sri Mishra asserted that the appointment of the petitioner is in violation of the Statute 11.42, as no Selection Committee was constituted in terms of the relevant statute and as such appointment of the petitioner is not a valid one. The Vice Chancellor had rightly not approved the appointment of the petitioner. On a close perusal of pleadings exchanged by and between the parties, I am of the firm view that the finding of the Vice Chancellor with regard to the constitution of the Selection Committee is not sustainable, in view of the fact that the Vice Chancellor himself has got an inquiry conducted in the matter and the Inquiring Officer submitted his report that appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with the law. There is contradictory finding recorded by the Vice Chancellor, moreover, in the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed document indicating therein that the then Vice Chancellor had nominated an expert who had signed the Minutes. This document has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. There is contradictory finding recorded by the Vice Chancellor, moreover, in the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed document indicating therein that the then Vice Chancellor had nominated an expert who had signed the Minutes. This document has not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid fact, the impugned order passed by the Vice Chancellor is set aside with a direction that he may consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. The petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh representation along with the documents in support of his case along with the certified copy of this order. The Vice Chancellor shall also hear the Committee of Management before passing the order. The Writ petition is disposed accordingly. _____________