JUDGMENT By the Court.—In the cause list, the names of Sri Anil Bhushan and Sri Rajiv Gaur have been shown as counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajiv Gaur has sent illness slip. Sri Anil Bhushan has not made any application for adjournment. He is not present in the revised call. 2. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Vice-Chancellor, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Meerut-respondent No. 2, submits that in this matter an interim order was granted, during summer vacation in 2006. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 27.2.2007, and was restored on 30.11.2007, and thereafter, the matter has not been listed. Petitioner is not allowing the writ petition to be heard by the Court. 3. Sri Shukla has pointed out from the order sheet of the case, that the matter has been adjourned from time to time. Initially it was adjourned on 14.11.2006. On 6.12.2006, the matter was adjourned with observations that if the counsel appearing for the petitioner is ill perpetually, in that case a fresh counsel has to be engaged, or alternative arrangement will be made for the purpose of expediting the hearing of the matter on the next date, and further that if more than one counsel is available, the Court will expect that the counsel, who is not ill, will proceed with the matter. It was again adjourned on 11.1.2007. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed in default on 27.2.2007. The restoration application was also dismissed in default on 25.9.2007. On 30.11.2007, the second restoration application was allowed on payment of costs, and the writ petition was directed to be restored. Thereafter the matter was adjourned at least on six occasions, namely, on 11.12.2007 for filing rejoinder affidavit; on 4.1.2008, 10.1.2008, 22.2.2008, 25.3.2008, it was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, and on 1.7.2008, it was once again adjourned to be listed in August 2008. Thereafter the case disappeared from the list. 4. The matter relates to the selection of the petitioner on the post of Registrar of the University. On 15.9.2004, the University issued an advertisement, for selection on the post of Deputy Registrar. Thereafter the case disappeared from the list. 4. The matter relates to the selection of the petitioner on the post of Registrar of the University. On 15.9.2004, the University issued an advertisement, for selection on the post of Deputy Registrar. A corrigendum was issued by the University on 21.11.2004, treating the advertised post of Deputy Registrar, to be the post of Registrar, for which the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes of the University is “Ph.D in any subject with 1-year administrative experience or Master’s degree in any subject with 2-year administrative Supervisory experience in Govt./Semi Govt. organization/University.” 5. The petitioner applied for the selections, claiming himself to be appointed in the year 1992 as Training Assistant (Horticulture) in Swami Kalyan Deo Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hastinapur, Meerut in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. Six months before his interviews, he was appointed as Public Relation Officer in the University, by the then Vice-Chancellor in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. 6. The petitioner was selected and appointed as the Registrar of the University by the then Vice-Chancellor. Subsequently, on enquiries made by the succeeding Vice-Chancellor, it was found that the advertisement was made for the post of Deputy Registrar, and the corrigendum was issued on 21.11.2004, to read the post of Deputy Registrar as Registrar with oblique purpose. The qualifications for the post, were not amended. The Chief Personnel Officer of the University, vide order dated 21.3.2005, for the then Vice-Chancellor appointed the petitioner on the post of Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 10650-15850/-. 7. One Sri D.K. Tyagi challenged the appointment of the petitioner before the Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor issued notices to the petitioner. After giving opportunity to the petitioner and hearing him, he found that the corrigendum was issued changing the advertisement for the post of Deputy Registrar to the post of Registrar but the qualifications for the post of Registrar were not changed. In fact the qualifications for the post of Registrar were not approved by the Executive Council of the University. The Chancellor found that the petitioner had worked in the year 1992-99 as Training Assistant (Horticulture) in Swami Kalyan Deo Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hastinapur, Meerut in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. whereas the post of Registrar carries the pay scale of Rs. 10650-15850/- which is much higher. The Chancellor found that the petitioner had worked in the year 1992-99 as Training Assistant (Horticulture) in Swami Kalyan Deo Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hastinapur, Meerut in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. whereas the post of Registrar carries the pay scale of Rs. 10650-15850/- which is much higher. In the year 1999, the petitioner was appointed as Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13500/- on ad hoc basis. The Chancellor was not satisfied that the petitioner was qualified to be selected on the post of Registrar. 8. In the counter affidavit of Sri Devendra Singh Yadav, Legal Advisor of the University, it is stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 as follows : “9. That it is significant to mention that in the writ petition the petitioner has enclosed a fabricated and manufactured document. Thus he has played fraud and committed perjury for which he is liable to be punished at the hands of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner filed a letter of the then Vice-Chancellor dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner has been shown to be appointed as Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. It is emphatically submitted that the petitioner has never been appointed in the University as Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. In the University the post of Public Relation Officer is in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- and not in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. Further post of post Public Relation Officer was created in the University by the State Government on 15.7.2004. Thus there was no occasion for the University to appoint the petitioner in the year 2002 on a non-existent post. Copy of the relevant pages of the order of the State Government dated 15.7.2004, which contained sanctioning of one post of Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- in the University is being enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to this affidavit. 10. That it is further significant to mention that the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. P.P. SIngh was appointed on 23.9.2002 as the Vice-Chancellor of the University whereas the appointment letter (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) has been shown to be issued to the petitioner on the post of Public Relation Officer on the very next day i.e. on 24.9.2002. 10. That it is further significant to mention that the then Vice-Chancellor Dr. P.P. SIngh was appointed on 23.9.2002 as the Vice-Chancellor of the University whereas the appointment letter (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) has been shown to be issued to the petitioner on the post of Public Relation Officer on the very next day i.e. on 24.9.2002. In the dispatch register of the University there is no entry of issuing such letter from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor. It is pertinent to mention that in the year 2002 the post of Public Relation Officer was not in existence. The said post has been created by the State Government vide order dated 15.7.2004, copy of the order has already been filed with the preceding paragraph. The petitioner has tried to mislead this Hon’ble Court by relying upon a fabricated and manufactured document and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.” 9. The copy of the counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 3.12.2007. For the last three years and three months, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder affidavit. 10. In this case, we also find that Prof. S.K. Kak, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has sent a letter dated 25.10.2009 to the Hon’ble Chief Justice alleging that the petitioner is holding the post on the basis of interim order. He was not qualified for the post. He had obtained an ex parte interim order by filing forged documents. He is indulging all kind of illegal activities, and threatening the University administration with the orders of the High Court. The Vice-Chancellor requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice to save the university from such person. The letter sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice does not appear to have been placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. It was sent to the Joint Registrar Listing on 2.12.2009. The Section Officer submitted a report that the case has already been listed on 6.8.2009, whereas the order sheet does not show that it was list. The office, apparently with the connivance of the petitioner did not list the case from 1.7.2008, upto 2011. 11. As observed above, the case had gone out of the list, and after 1.7.2008, it appeared only in March 2011. The office, apparently with the connivance of the petitioner did not list the case from 1.7.2008, upto 2011. 11. As observed above, the case had gone out of the list, and after 1.7.2008, it appeared only in March 2011. Despite best efforts of the counsel for the respondent and the letter of the University to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, hearing of the writ petition was avoided. 12. The Chancellor of the University in his order dated 31.5.2006 has found that the qualifications for the post of Registrar were not approved by the Executive Council of the University. The University has informed that for the post of Registrar, the qualifications are Ph.D in any subject with one year administrative experience, or Master’s Degree in any subject with two years administrative supervisory experience in Govt./Semi Government Organization/University. For the important post of Registrar, the provision of one year administrative experience in alternative to the post-graduate degree was not justified. There was no good reason for relaxing the requirement of post-graduate degree. Apart from this, if requirement of research degree was made necessary for the post of Registrar, it was not possible to relax the requirement of post-graduate degree. The qualifications and conditions of eligibility for the post are contradictory, and were not proper. 13. The Chancellor also found that the appointment of the petitioner in 1999, on ad hoc basis, as Public Relation Officer was not sufficient qualification, to treat the petitioner as eligible for the post of Registrar. 14. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically alleged that there was no post of Public Relation Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-. It was created in the University by the State Government on 15.7.2004, in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-. There was no occasion for the University to appoint the petitioner in the year 2002, on a non-existent post. He did not hold the requisite experience for appointment on the post of Registrar. 15. In the absence of any denial, and deliberate avoidance of hearing, we have no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Chancellor. 16. In the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac). He did not hold the requisite experience for appointment on the post of Registrar. 15. In the absence of any denial, and deliberate avoidance of hearing, we have no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Chancellor. 16. In the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac). The order of the Chancellor is affirmed holding that the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Registrar of the University is non-est appointment, and that he has no right to hold the post. The University will at liberty to recover the entire salary paid to the petitioner. —————