JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—Writ Petition No. 48034 of 2014 has been preferred by the Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur through its Secretary/Member Sri Ranvir Shankar for quashing of the order dated 26 August 2014 passed by the Director, Higher Education, U.P. at Allahabad wherein he has given directives for ensuring functioning of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as Principal of the aforementioned college and for ensuring payment of salary for the period starting w.e.f. 20 June 2009 to 25 June 2009 as well as the consequential order dated 29 August 2014 passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer, Gorakhpur addressed to the Management in question with the direction that failing compliance action would be taken against the institution concerned. 2. Writ Petition No. 10441 of 2015 has been filed by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai with the prayer to direct the Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur to comply with the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, U.P. and allow him to work as Principal of the aforementioned institution and to ensure payment of salary to him from 26 April 2012 and other allowances as and when due. 3. Brief background of the case giving rise to both these instant writ petitions are that in the district of Gorakhpur there is a college known as DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur affiliated to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Gorakhpur, and the affairs of the said institution is to be run and managed strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained under U.P. State Universities Act 1973 and the First Statutes framed thereunder. Selection and appointment of principal and teachers in the institution in question is governed by the provisions of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act 1980 and the rules framed thereunder. 4. In the institution in question post of Principal had fallen vacant and the said post in question has been subject-matter of selection in advertisement No. 25 issued by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission and in the said selection Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai was selected and recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for being appointed as Principal of the institution. Pursuant to the said recommendation, so made, appointment letter was issued to Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai who joined as Principal on 27 July 1993 and continued to function in the said capacity in the institution in question. Rama Shanakr Rai was selected and recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for being appointed as Principal of the institution. Pursuant to the said recommendation, so made, appointment letter was issued to Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai who joined as Principal on 27 July 1993 and continued to function in the said capacity in the institution in question. It appears from the record in question that relationship in between the Managing Committee of the institution concerned as well as Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai has not at all been smooth and cordial and this fact is also fully reflected from the fact that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, filed on behalf of Committee of the Management of the institution, it has been mentioned that since the year 1993 up to 19 June 2009 the conduct of Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai has always been under dispute due to his illegal activities and unbecoming behaviour and misconduct and as far as Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai is concerned he has also been levelling counter allegations of mismanagement by the Committee of Management of the institution in question and thus both were not seeing each other eye to eye. 5. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai continued to function in the institution in question and then advertisement No. 39 dated 24 April 2005 has been issued by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission for 69 posts of principals in post graduate colleges (Male), 18 posts of principals in post graduate colleges (female), 42 posts of principals in degree colleges (Male) and 11 posts of principals in degree colleges (female) and by Corrigendum dated 23 February 2006 the number of posts were modified to the effect that 81 posts of principals in post graduate colleges (Male), 17 posts of principals in post graduate colleges (Female), 47 posts of principals in degree colleges (Male) and 12 posts of principals in degree colleges (Female) was issued. Pursuant to the said advertisement in question Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai also applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of principal and when the result in question has been declared, in the said result Dr. Pursuant to the said advertisement in question Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai also applied for consideration of his candidature for the post of principal and when the result in question has been declared, in the said result Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was also shown to have been selected but before appointment orders could be issued in favour of those included in the select list number of complaints were received against the selection and appointment made by U.P. Higher Education Services Commission alleging therein large scale irregularities and malpractices of serious nature in the selection procedure and demanding an inquiry into the same and the State Government, accordingly, directed the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad to hold an inquiry into the allegations and to submit a report within 15 days. The Divisional Commissioner in his turn asked for certain information from the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission in connection with the inquiry with a copy to the Director, Higher Education, requesting him to show restraint in issuing the placement orders in terms of the recommendations received from the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission. 6. At the said juncture various selected candidates filed writ petition before this Court challenging the notification issued by the State Government appointing the Divisional Commissioner as an Inquiry Officer and the letter written by him to the Director of Education asking him to withhold the issue of placement orders in favour of the selected candidates. While the said writ petitions were still pending disposal the Divisional Commissioner submitted a preliminary enquiry report dated 6 July 2007 in which he recorded a prima facie conclusion that series of irregularities and malpractices have been committed by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission in the process of selection. This Court in the meantime passed an interim order dated 13 July 2007 staying the operation of the notification appointing the Divisional Commissioner as an Inquiry Officer with a direction to the respondent to issue appointment letters to the selected candidates within three weeks. At the said juncture, the State Government filed special leave petition before the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court on 21 August 2007 stayed the interim direction of this Court insofar as the same directed the Director, Higher Education to issue appointment letters in favour of the selected candidates. At the said juncture, the State Government filed special leave petition before the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court on 21 August 2007 stayed the interim direction of this Court insofar as the same directed the Director, Higher Education to issue appointment letters in favour of the selected candidates. The said special leave petition was finally disposed of by the Apex Court on 12 February 2008 with a request to this Court to dispose of the writ petitions within four months and the interim order passed on 21 August 2007 was directed to continue in the meantime. 7. Before this Court, the Government filed a counter-affidavit to the writ petition stating therein that there were serious infirmities in the selection process and an in-depth enquiry into the matter was necessary. This Court, thereafter, allowed the writ petition quashing the orders dated 12 June 2007 and 16 June 2007 and issued a mandamus to the Director, Higher Education, to make placements in favour of selected candidates. At the said juncture, special leave to appeal has been filed before the Apex Court i.e. State of U.P. and others v. Bharat Singh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 142, and in the said special leave to appeal interim order dated 20 November 2008 has been passed by the Apex Court asking the State Government to appoint the selected candidates on their undertaking being furnished to the effect that in case they loose the battle they will stand reverted to the posts of readers and the difference of salary amount drawn by them as principals shall be recovered and paid back to the State Government. The said direction was once again reiterated by Apex Court on 23 April 2009 by mentioning that although 56 candidates had already been appointed of the select list in different degree and post graduate college, the direction of Apex Court should be complied with in toto within period of one month from the date of order. 8. This fact is also there on record that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has also filed an affidavit before the Apex Court to the effect that in case he loses the battle he can be reverted to the post actually held by him and during the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court Dr. 8. This fact is also there on record that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has also filed an affidavit before the Apex Court to the effect that in case he loses the battle he can be reverted to the post actually held by him and during the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was also offered appointment at Lajpat Rai Post Graduate College, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad and the said institution has been objecting to the recommendation and Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been insisting for his placement at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College and in this background two writ petitions, one filed by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai (Writ Petition No. 17788 of 2009); other filed by Committee of Management of Lajpat Rai Post Graduate College (Writ Petition No. 22815 of 2009), came up before this Court and ultimately this Court on 6 May 2009 in peculiar facts of the case asked Director of Higher Education, U.P. at Allahabad to issue placement order in favour of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai. The Director of Higher Education, accordingly, issued letter on 1 June 2009 to the Managing Committee of Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College and the Managing Committee on 7 June 2009 passed resolution for issuing appointment letter and on 8 June 2009 Managing Secretary issued appointment letter hedged with condition that same would abide by the decision of pending SLPs. Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, thereafter, claims that he applied and has been granted extra ordinary leave for three years by the Managing Committee of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur w.e.f. 25 June 2009 and he claims to have joined at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli on 26 June 2009 and had been performing and discharging his duties as principal. Managing Committee of the said institution on the other hand has been insisting that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been relieved on 19 June 2009 and no leave has been granted to him. 9. Civil Appeal No. 2351 of 2011, State of U.P. and others v. Bharat Singh and others, 2011 (4) SCC 120 , that has been pending before the Apex Court was decided by the Apex Court on 8 March 2011 and therein the Apex Court disposed of the appeal with various directions and operative portion of the said order is extracted below; “80. In the result we dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (1) The impugned orders passed by the High Court to the extent the same hold that the posts of Principals in affiliated/aided colleges are not amenable to reservation are affirmed. (2) Order dated 12th June, 2007 issued by the Government appointing the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad as an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the validity of selection process and the report submitted by the said Enquiry Officer shall stand quashed and the order passed by the High Court to that effect affirmed. (3) The question whether the Government was competent to direct an enquiry into the validity of the selection process under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 or under Article 154 of the Constitution is left open in view of the pendency of the writ petitions challenging the validity of the selection process before the High Court. (4) The High Court shall in the writ petitions pending before it be free to examine all issues regarding the selection process in question including the validity of the procedure followed in making the same. Depending upon whether the High Court finds the selection process to be valid or otherwise the Government shall have the liberty to institute an enquiry against the members of the State Services Selection Commission if such enquiry is otherwise permitted under law. In case, however, the High Court upholds the selection process and dismisses the writ petitions there shall be no room left for the State Government to embark upon any further enquiry into the matter on the administrative side. The aggrieved party shall be free to challenge the view taken by the High Court in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. (5) The selected candidates who have filed undertakings in this Court and have been appointed to the posts of Principals pursuant to the orders of this Court shall stand impleaded as parties to each of the writ petitions pending in the High Court and challenging the selection process. The selected candidates shall based on this direction appear before the High Court on 2.5.2011 without any further notice in each one of the petitions and file their counter-affidavits. The selected candidates shall based on this direction appear before the High Court on 2.5.2011 without any further notice in each one of the petitions and file their counter-affidavits. Failure on the part of the candidates to do the needful shall be suitably dealt with by the High Court who shall be free to proceed ex parte, against those who fail to comply with this direction. (6) In order to expedite the hearing of the case the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad is requested to place the writ petitions before a Division Bench of the High Court for an early hearing and disposal as far as possible before the 1st December, 2011. (7) Pending disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court the selected candidates shall be entitled to receive their pay and allowances including increments etc. otherwise admissible to the post of Principal as if the appointments were made on a valid and substantive basis. Such benefits flowing from the same shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions before the High Court and the undertakings furnished by the appointed candidates to this Court which undertaking shall be deemed to have been continued till such time the writ petitions are finally disposed of. 81. The parties shall bear their own costs.” 10. A bare perusal of the said order would go to show the condition No. 7 clearly mentions that pending disposal of the writ petitions by the High Court the selected candidates are entitled to receive their pay and allowances including increments etc. otherwise admissible to the post of Principal as if the appointments were made on a valid and substantive basis and further such benefits flowing from the same shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions before the High Court and the undertakings furnished by the appointed candidates to this Court which undertaking shall be deemed to have been continued till such time the writ petitions are finally disposed of. Here the appointment letter that has been so issued in favour of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai contained condition that his appointment is subject to the decision of the SLPs pending before the Apex Court and as per Apex Court continuance was dependent on the decision of writ petition and with the said rider Dr. Rama Shankar Rai continued to function in the institution concerned. Rama Shankar Rai contained condition that his appointment is subject to the decision of the SLPs pending before the Apex Court and as per Apex Court continuance was dependent on the decision of writ petition and with the said rider Dr. Rama Shankar Rai continued to function in the institution concerned. Thereafter, the writ petition in question has been taken up by this Court and same has been decided on merits and this Court proceeded to allow the writ petition in question on 23 April 2012 wherein the selection process was quashed and the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission was directed to hold the interview afresh after making some guidelines thereof. 11. Thereafter, on 25 April 2012, Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was relieved from Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli and on 26 April 2012 Dr. Rama Shankar Rai served information in writing to the Manager and Officiating Principal and other educational authorities that he has joined the post of Principal at DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, but it appears that Managing Committee of the said institution was not at all interested in ensuring his joining. The inaction on the part of the Managing Committee of the DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur impelled Dr. Rama Shankar Rai to file Writ Petition No. 22152 of 2012 before this Court seeking direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to ensure his joining as principal in the DAV Post Graduate College, Goarakhpur. Thereafter, an order has been passed in his favour for ensuring his joining in the institution concerned and Committee of the Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, proceeded to resist the same by filing counter-affidavit and this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 22152 of 2012 and 12809 of 2012, filed by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai in reference of refusal of salary for a short period, proceeded to pass an order directing therein to decide the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and, thereafter, the Director, Higher Education, has proceeded to pass an order and the said order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court by the Managing Committee of the institution concerned and as the said order has not at all been complied with Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has also followed the suit by preferring writ petition before this Court and both the writ petitions have been clubbed and are being taken up together. Rama Shankar Rai has also followed the suit by preferring writ petition before this Court and both the writ petitions have been clubbed and are being taken up together. 12. In Writ Petition No. 48034 of 2014 a supplementary-affidavit has been filed giving therein details of the orders dated 10 May 2012, 3 August 2012, 14 September 2012, 16 July 2012, 16 May 2013, 12 August 2013 and 17 December 2013, the various orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court and to the pleadings that have been mentioned in the writ petition a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned therein by contending that entire exercise is nothing but an outcome of malice and further stand, that has been taken of termination of lien, is an illegal stand as the Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, itself prevented the joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai in the institution. To the said counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit and, thereafter, both the writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties. 13. Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Sripat, Advocate, has assailed the validity of the decision so taken by the Director, Higher Education, by contending that Director, Higher Education, in the present case, has totally misdirected himself at the point of time when he has proceeded to pass an order for ensuring joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai ignoring all these factual aspect of matter that on substantive basis Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been offered appointment at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli and he never tendered resignation from that place, in view of this, there is no occasion or justification for ensuring his joining at earlier institution, wherein no lien is left, and further mention has been made that order passed by Regional Higher Education Officer on the earlier occasion has been totally ignored by him at the point of time when he proceeded to pass such an order and assertions have also been made that incorrect directives have been given by him in regard to ensuring payment to Dr. Rama Shankar Rai w.e.f. 20 June 2009 to 25 June 2009 and, as such, order passed by the Director, Higher Education, is bad and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 14. The arguments advanced on behalf of Managing Committee of DAV Post Graduate College has been resisted by Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri M.K. Singh, Advocate, and Shri Manu Khare, Advocate, by submitting that in the present case the circumstances are speaking for itself and the malice on the part of Managing Committee of the institution concerned is writ apparent as in spite of the fact that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has returned back to his parent college to resume his duties, quite illegally his lien has been sought to be terminated without any foundation and basis and as entire action is malicious one and not at all subscribed by law, as such, writ petition preferred on behalf of Managing Committee of the institution concerned is liable to be dismissed and writ petition preferred by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai deserves to be allowed by this Court. 15. We have proceeded to advert to the respective arguments so advanced on behalf of both the parties and we find that as far as Managing Committee of the institution and Dr. Rama Shankar Rai are concerned, they were not at all on normal terms and both have grievances against each other and this fact is fully fortified from the circumstances that in paragraph 7 of the writ petition filed on behalf of Committee of the Management of the institution concerned, it has been mentioned that since the year 1993 up to 19 June 2009 there has been illegal activities on the part of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai and his conduct has always been under dispute due to his illegal activities and unbecoming behaviour and misconduct and we find that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has also proceeded to level counter allegations by contending that the Managing Committee of the institution concerned at all point of time has been misusing its position and it has also been sought to be contended that the property of the institution has been given in the hands of private persons. 16. Rama Shankar Rai has also proceeded to level counter allegations by contending that the Managing Committee of the institution concerned at all point of time has been misusing its position and it has also been sought to be contended that the property of the institution has been given in the hands of private persons. 16. For the purposes of present case such facts are not being given much importance, inasmuch as, in case the Management of the institution concerned is indulging in activities not subscribed by law then action can always be taken under Sections 57 and 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 and in case the Principal of the institution is indulging in activities which would constitute misconduct, then disciplinary action can always be taken against him under U.P. State Universities Act 1973 and the First Statute framed thereunder and, in view of this, this Court is not at all going into merits and demerits of the charges that have been levelled by both the parties against each other, and specially as much emphasis has been laid by the Managing Committee of the institution before this Court that in spite of the fact that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been relieved from the institution, he had indulged in making illegal appointments of class IV employees. This Court is not at all going into validity of those appointment or the authority so exercised by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai collaterally to have a glimpse of his conduct, as in our opinion, such issues have to be raised before the appropriate forum or before the appropriate Court and only when from an appropriate forum or Court a verdict is given, after giving opportunities to the parties concerned, that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has misused his official position in making such selections, then action can always be taken against him but in collateral proceedings validity of such activities without impleading affected incumbents cannot be examined and similar would be the situation qua other charges also, that have been so levelled, and for said charges also one will have to hold regular departmental enquiry against Dr. Rama Shankar Rai and take action as per law. Accordingly, for the purposes of answering the issues raised, charges and counter charges are of no consequence, and we have to address the issue as to whether the Committee of Management is right in not permitting Dr. Rama Shankar Rai and take action as per law. Accordingly, for the purposes of answering the issues raised, charges and counter charges are of no consequence, and we have to address the issue as to whether the Committee of Management is right in not permitting Dr. Rama Shankar Rai to resume his duties as Principal and as to whether lien of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai stood terminated on account of his joining at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli. 17. The facts of the case are speaking for itself, inasmuch as, selection and appointment that has been so undertaken by means of advertisement dated 24 February 2005 has been under cloud being subject-matter of dispute right from its inception and in the said dispute in question Apex Court had to intervene by passing order dated 20 November 2008 by directing the State to appoint the selected candidates as Principals of the various colleges with an undertaking to be undertaken by them that those who lose the battle they would go back to their parent college. The said order passed by Apex Court is extracted below; “1. Issue notice, returnable within two months. 2. Pending disposal of the special leave petitioner, the petitioners shall appoint the respondents as Principals of various aided non-Government degree colleges and postgraduate colleges of Uttar Pradesh within a period of one month from this date. However, we make it clear that the appointment shall be subject to the decision of these petitions and such appointments have to be treated on the basis of this Court’s order. In the event, the respondents and others in the select list, file an undertaking in this Court within one month from this date, if not already filed, the petitioners shall appoint them subject to further order in the writ petition or by this Court. If the respondents give an undertaking that in the event they lose the battle, they will be automatically reverted to as Readers and the difference of salary that would be taken as a Principal, shall be recovered and paid back to the petitioners. 3. We, however, further make it clear that if the aforesaid undertakings are not filed within a month from this date, the interim order granted by this Court shall not be treated to have been granted in favour of those respondents who have not given the undertaking.” 18. Dr. 3. We, however, further make it clear that if the aforesaid undertakings are not filed within a month from this date, the interim order granted by this Court shall not be treated to have been granted in favour of those respondents who have not given the undertaking.” 18. Dr. Rama Shankar Rai also intended to be appointed as Principal at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli and after the said order has been passed by the Apex Court he also gave an undertaking as asked for before the Apex Court and he has also been insisting for being offered appointment and he filed Writ Petition No. 17788 of 2009 for issuing direction for ensuring his joining and on 6 May 2009 orders were passed for ensuring his joining and, thereafter, the Director, Higher Education, issued orders for placement of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli on 1 June 2009 and the appointment order in question was hedged with the condition that it was subject to pending SLPs. Dr. Rama Shankar Rai claims that he took extra ordinary leave for three years for enabling him to join at the aforementioned institution and the said leave in question has been accorded and he left the institution on 25 June 2009 and joined at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli on 26 June 2009. This is accepted position that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai had been performing and discharging his duties as Principal at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli and as Writ Petition No. 34198 of 2008 and all connected writ petitions were allowed and selection proceedings were quashed vide judgment and order dated 23 April 2012, the Management of Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli relieved Dr. Rama Shankar Rai from the post of principal on 25 June 2012 and prior to it as the writ petition in question has been allowed on 23 April 2012 visualizing this fact that he has no right to continue as per the undertaking given by him on 26 April 2012 came to the DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur for ensuring his joining but no heed was paid to the same. 19. 19. This much is also clear that the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 34198 of 2008 has been subjected to challenge before the Apex Court by the selected candidates in Veerendra Kumar Gautam and others v. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and others, CC 8358 of 2012 and others and this much is also clear that in reference of some of the selected candidates interim order has been passed on 10 May 2012 and in reference of one candidate Dr. (Mrs.) B.R. Agarwal, who had preferred contempt application, orders have been passed that once all similarly situated incumbents are continuing, there is no reason to single out her. As far Dr. Rama Shankar Rai is concerned at no point of time in special leave petition No. 24302 of 2013, that has been preferred by him, any interim order has been passed and the net effect of the same has been that the order passed by this Court as against him is operating against him. We also take note of the fact that an order was passed by the Director, Higher Education, for ensuring joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli on 1 October 2012 and the Management of the said college in its turn proceeded to question the validity of the aforementioned order by filing of Writ Petition No. 54715 of 2012 before a Division Bench of this Court and this Court on 16 May 2013 has proceeded to set aside the order of Director, Higher Education, on the premises that there is no interim order in his favour of Apex Court and net effect of the same is that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has not at all been in a position to join at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli. 20. The factual situation that is so emerging from all these facts, narrated above, are that the selection and appointment of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been quashed by this Court and special leave petition preferred by him before the Apex Court has been pending with no interim order passed and the Director of Higher Education, based on the order passed in favour of others against the judgment of this Court, has proceeded to pass orders in favour of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been quashed by this Court and special leave petition preferred by him before the Apex Court has been pending with no interim order passed and the Director of Higher Education, based on the order passed in favour of others against the judgment of this Court, has proceeded to pass orders in favour of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai on 1 October 2012 and the said order has not been approved of by this Court and same has been set-aside and as per the undertaking furnished by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, he has to go back to his parent institution in question as his appointment under order dated 20 November 2008 has to be accepted as an appointment made under the order of the Court, but here the Management of his parent institution i.e. DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, has not welcomed his return and has been creating blocks and obstructing his joining and the reason is obvious that both the Management and Dr. Rama Shankar Rai were not seeing each other eye to eye, inasmuch as, the Management of the institution was having a strong feeling that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has not conducted himself properly and he has proceeded to make illegal appointments of class IV employee. The fact of the matter is that in case illegal appointment has been made by Dr. Rama Shanakr Rai or if he has indulged in any activity, that may constitute misconduct, then as already mentioned above, he can always be subjected to disciplinary proceedings, if any, and in case misconduct has been committed by him, then action be taken against him, in accordance with law. Past conduct of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai may haunt him but said past conduct cannot be used as a tool to block the return of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as Principal of the institution by the Managing Committee of the institution concerned and in this backdrop the action of Managing Committee has to be judged. 21. Reverting to the main issue, as to whether Director, Higher Education, is right when he has proceeded to pass an order for ensuring joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai in the institution concerned. The facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that as far as joining of Dr. 21. Reverting to the main issue, as to whether Director, Higher Education, is right when he has proceeded to pass an order for ensuring joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai in the institution concerned. The facts and circumstances of the case make it clear that as far as joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, is concerned, it was a conditional appointment and conditional joining subject to the decision of SLPs and writ petition in question and said appointments have to be accepted and treated on the basis of Court’s order, as per the directives of Apex Court dated 20 November 2008 and because of this fact at no point of time Dr. Rama Shankar Rai had ever been kept on probation and had never been confirmed on the said post and his continuance at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College was to abide by the judgment and order of this Court as per the directives issued by the Apex Court dated 8 March 2011 the selected candidates were entitled to receive their pay and allowances including increment etc. but such benefits were subject to the outcome of the writ petition before the High Court and the undertaking furnished by the selected candidates before the Apex Court and Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has furnished affidavit in the said direction and his appointment in question has been a conditional appointment. Once such was the factual situation and appointment of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was a conditional appointment and same has been quashed by this Court and there has been no interim order in his favour in SLP preferred by him and his joining at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli subsequent to the grant of interim order by the Apex Court qua other candidates has not been approved of by a Division Bench of this Court, then he had no right to claim appointment at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, Rai Bareli and, in this background, Dr. Rama Shankar Rai proceeded to join his parent institution but Management of the same has been resisting his joining. 22. This much fact is fully substantiated that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai proceeded to join his parent institution but Management of the same has been resisting his joining. 22. This much fact is fully substantiated that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been insisting for permitting him to perform and discharge his duties as Principal, after his selection has been quashed and this is a normal conduct expected from him, as at the point of time when he has left his parent institution DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, he fully knew it well that his joining at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College is subject-matter of dispute and litigation may go any way, under the orders of Apex Court on furnishing of undertaking he had been offered appointment and for ensuring his resumption of duties he filed writ petition No. 22152 of 2012, wherein on 10 May 2012, Managing Committee was asked to permit functioning of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as Principal or to show-cause. Managing Committee has chosen not to comply with interim mandamus and then Director of Higher Education has been asked to look into the matter as resistance by Managing Committee in ensuring joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai is an admitted facts in the case. 23. Before we proceed to examine the validity of decision taken by Director of Higher Education, as much emphasis has been placed by the Managing Committee of their action of terminating the lien, we are examining said issue first. 24. Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sandhya Tomar and another, 2013(1) ESC 19 (SC), has proceeded to mention that lien connotes civil right of a Government servant to hold post to which he is appointed substantively i.e. in accordance with law. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment provides for as follows; “10. “Lien” connotes the civil right of a Government servant to hold the post “to which he is appointed substantively.” The necessary corollary to the aforesaid right, is that such appointment must be in accordance with law. A person can be said to have acquired lien as regards a particular post only when his appointment has been confirmed, and when he has been made permanent to the said post. A person can be said to have acquired lien as regards a particular post only when his appointment has been confirmed, and when he has been made permanent to the said post. “The word `lien’ is a generic term and, standing alone, it includes lien acquired by way of contract, or by operation of law.” Whether a person has lien, depends upon whether he has been appointed in accordance with law, in substantive capacity and whether he has been made permanent or has been confirmed to the said post. (Vide: Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 ; S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ; T.R. Sharma v. Prithvi Singh and others, AIR 1976 SC 367 ; Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1989 SC 1985 ; Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 SC 496 ; Dr. S.K. Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others, (1996) 10 SCC 734 ; S. Narayana v. Md. Ahmedulla Khan and others, AIR 2006 SC 2224 ; and State of Rajasthan and another v. S.N. Tiwari and others, AIR 2009 SC 2104 ).” 25. Whether a person has lien, depends upon whether he has been appointed in accordance with law in substantive capacity and whether he has has been made permanent or has been confirmed to the said post and the law on the said subject is clear that a person cannot have lien against the two posts. 26. This fact is accepted by the Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was having lien over the post in question, inasmuch as, it is only when the lien is continuing then only the lien could be cancelled. The ground that has been so taken for cancelling the lien of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as is reflected from the resolution dated 3 August 2014, at page 269 of the writ petition of committee of management of the institution in question, is that Dr. The ground that has been so taken for cancelling the lien of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as is reflected from the resolution dated 3 August 2014, at page 269 of the writ petition of committee of management of the institution in question, is that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been relieved from the institution on 19 June 2009 and no leave whatsoever has been granted to him by the Management and as per Statute 16.18 of the First Statute of Gorakhpur University an incumbent is entitled for a leave of five years and a teacher who has absented himself for more than five years cannot be retained in service. The said resolution on its face value shows the malafides on the part of Committee of Management, inasmuch as, Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has been fighting tooth and nail for his restoration in the institution in question since the year 2012, and on one hand the Managing Committee of the institution has not been permitting him to resume his duties as Principal of the institution and on the other hand on the premises that an incumbent cannot be permitted to be on leave for more than five years and on absenteeism of five year lien has been terminated. Such an action of the Managing Committee of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, is totally contrary to the law and contrary to the rule of fair play, inasmuch as, one cannot take advantage or benefit of its own wrong doing as on one hand the Managing Committee of the institution concerned has been blocking the entry of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai in the institution in question and on the other hand plea has been sought to be taken that an incumbent, who has absented himself for more than five years, cannot be retained in service and his lien has automatically come to an end. 27. We are of the firm opinion, in the facts of present case that termination of lien in such a fashion cannot be subscribed by any means and same clearly shows the intention of committee of management of the institution in question to do away with the services of Dr. 27. We are of the firm opinion, in the facts of present case that termination of lien in such a fashion cannot be subscribed by any means and same clearly shows the intention of committee of management of the institution in question to do away with the services of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai by any means fair or foul and this resolution in effect is a veiled dispensation of service and such a resolution is of no consequence unless and until the same is reported to the Vice-Chancellor under Section 35 (2) of U.P. State Universities Act 1973 and same is approved by the Vice-Chancellor and, accordingly, no benefit or advantage can be derived by the Managing Committee of the institution concerned and termination of lien, accordingly, is of no consequence and same is disapproved by us. 28. In the backdrop of finding returned that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai was having lien on the post of Principal of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur and his lien in question has been arbitrarily terminated, we proceed to examine the shortcomings that have been pointed out in the decision of Director of Higher Education. 29. Much emphasis has been made that an order has been passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer in respect of relieving of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai from the institution concerned but the said order has been totally ignored and directives have been issued for ensuring payment of salary for the period in question. 30. Order passed by the Regional Higher Education Officer has been subject-matter of challenge before this Court and this Court on 13 March 2014 asked the Director of Higher Education to look into both the matters i.e. issue of six days service break/payment of salary and the issue of joining and, as such, the said order cannot be said to have attained finality rather it has been made subject to the decision of the Director of Higher Education and here in the present case Director of Higher Education on objective consideration has recorded a categorical finding that Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has functioned upto 25 June 2009 and in coming to such a conclusion a categorical mention has been made that all the documents in reference of appointment letter dated 26 July 1993, confirmation letter dated 12 July 1994, relieving letter dated 25 June 2009, papers pertaining to grant of extra ordinary leave dated 24 June 2009 and the letter dated 24 June 2012 there is similarity and to meet out such finding the Management of the institution has tried to term the said documents as in-genuine and fake documents. 31. This much is accepted position that as far as signatures on the said documents are concerned, the said signatures have been accepted but the theory that has been set-up to avoid liability is that blank signed papers have been taken away. Dr. Rama Shankar Rai has come up with the specific case that at no point of time there has been any FIR lodged alleging that signed papers of the Management have been taken away by him. The factual situation that is so emerging in the present case that signatures have been accepted by the signatory on all those documents as it could not have been denied or disputed and in order to avoid the liability arising out of such document, stand has been taken that said documents are manipulated. Once the Director of Higher Education has satisfied himself that the signatures are common and identical and signatures have been accepted, then counter story set up that signed documents have been got removed, is a theory in the facts of the present case that no one would believe on the scales of a reasonable or prudent man to be true. Suggestion has also been made that once Managing Committee has not been on good terms, there was no occasion to sanction leave and relieve. Once Managing Committee had not at all been on good terms with Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, Principal of the institution, then any move of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai to go out of the institution was a welcome move from the perspective and point of view of Managing Committee and in this background suggestion that such letters have not been written and are manipulated, cannot be accepted. Rama Shankar Rai, Principal of the institution, then any move of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai to go out of the institution was a welcome move from the perspective and point of view of Managing Committee and in this background suggestion that such letters have not been written and are manipulated, cannot be accepted. The finding of fact returned by Director of Higher Education is neither perverse nor unreasonable and once such a finding has been returned, and at no point of time Managing Committee has chosen to initiate any action against Dr. Rama Shankar Rai during continuance of his lien, and in this background once lien has been there and service of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, that has never been confirmed at Feroze Gandhi Post Graduate College, has come to an end on account of judicial intervention, then Managing Committee of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, was obligated to ensure joining of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as Principal of the aforesaid college, instead of driving and forcing him in the arena of litigation. 32. Once Managing Committee of the DAV Post Graduate College, Gorkahpur, has not at all been fair in dealing with Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, we do not approve of the treatment meted to Dr. Rama Shankar Rai and the action of the Managing Committee cannot be subscribed by this Court, accordingly, the directives that have been so issued by the Director, Higher Education, are not at all liable to be interfered with by this Court, as such, writ petition No. 48034 of 2014, preferred on behalf of Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, is dismissed and writ petition No. 10441 of 2015, preferred by Dr. Rama Shankar Rai, is allowed and Committee of Management of DAV Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, is directed to ensure working of Dr. Rama Shankar Rai as Principal in the institution forthwith as well as ensure due salary to him preferably within next three months. ——————