JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. T. Gadi, learned Standing counsel for Rajiv Gandhi University representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the communication date 25.11.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3; the communication dated 11.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 3 and for a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to deem that the Petitioner had joined as the Professor of Department of Management in the Respondent No. 2 University w.e.f. 24.11.2021 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. 3. The brief facts of the instant case are that the Petitioner joined the Rajiv Gandhi University at Itanagar (the Respondent No. 2 herein) on 03.08.1995 as the faculty of Commerce and served in the capacity till the year 2006. From the year 2006 to 2019, the Petitioner served as the Head of the Department (Management) of the Respondent No. 2 University and during this period, the Petitioner held posts as a Chairman, Board of Studies; Member, Board of Studies; Dean of Faculty, Commerce and Management; Member of Academic Council; Member of Executive Council. Besides such engagement, the Petitioner was the Court Member of Tripura University and Member of Research Council, NERIST. On and from the year 2014, the Petitioner was also holding the post of Controller of Examinations of the Respondent No. 2 University. 4. In the year 2018, pursuant to an advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the post of Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University as per the prescribed format. The candidature of the Petitioner along with other applicants were considered and the Governor of Assam-cum-the Chancellor, Dibrugarh University vide an order dated 04.07.2018, appointed the Petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University. The said order dated 04.07.2018 was followed by a notification of the same date issued by the Joint Secretary to the Governor of Assam thereby appointing the Petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10(1) and (2) of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act of 1965’). The said order dated 04.07.2018 was followed by a notification of the same date issued by the Joint Secretary to the Governor of Assam thereby appointing the Petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10(1) and (2) of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act of 1965’). At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of that vide the said notification dated 04.07.2018, the Petitioner was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University with effect from the date of taking over charge and he shall hold office for a period of 5(five) years or till he attains the age of 70(seventy) years, whichever is earlier as per the provisions of Sub-Section (3) and (4) of Section 10 of the Act of 1965. 5. Consequent to the said appointment order as well as the notification both dated 04.07.2018, the Petitioner was granted lien by the Respondent No. 2 University for a period of 3(three) years w.e.f. 17.07.2018 to 16.07.2021 vide an order dated 16.07.2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3. It was mentioned in the order dated 16.07.2018 that the terms and conditions in granting lien which were not specified in the said order but exist in the Rajiv Gandhi University Ordinance and promulgated from time to time would be applicable in the case. It is also relevant herein to mention that vide another order dated 30.03.2021, the lien which was granted to the Petitioner vide the order dated 16.07.2018 was extended for another period of 2(two) years i.e. w.e.f. 17.07.2021 to 16.07.2023, on the said terms and conditions as was there in the order dated 16.07.2018. 6. On the basis of the said lien so granted on 16.07.2021, the Petitioner joined the post of the Vice-Chancellor in the Dibrugarh University, Assam. 7. The record reveals that various allegations were leveled against the Petitioner by The Dibrugarh University’s Teachers Association, The Dibrugarh University’s Officers Association, The Dibrugarh University’s Employees Association as well as by one Shri Rituparna Baruah, MLA, Lahowal, LAC. In pursuance to such allegations being leveled against the Petitioner, the Governor of Assam-cum-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University called for an explanation from the Petitioner vide an letter dated 26.01.2021. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.01.2021. In pursuance to such allegations being leveled against the Petitioner, the Governor of Assam-cum-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University called for an explanation from the Petitioner vide an letter dated 26.01.2021. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.01.2021. Thereupon, as the reply submitted by the Petitioner was not found satisfactory, The Governor of Assam-cum-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University constituted one fact finding committee vide a notification dated 02.02.2021. On the basis of the report submitted by the fact finding committee dated 08.02.2021, the Governor of Assam in his capacity as the Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University appointed a high level enquiry committee to go into details of the functioning of the Dibrugarh University and the Petitioner was placed under suspension vide a notification dated 11.02.2021. The said high level enquiry committee submitted a detailed report whereby the charges leveled against the Petitioner were found to be proved. On the basis of the said high level enquiry committee report, the Petitioner was granted an opportunity to have a say on the said report which upon being submitted by the Petitioner, was not found to be satisfactory for which the Governor of Assam in his capacity as the Chancellor of Dibrugarh University and the appointing authority of the Petitioner removed the Petitioner from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University with immediate effect. The said order was passed on 22.11.2021. 8. On the very date of the order of removal of the Petitioner i.e. 22.11.2021, the Petitioner issued a communication to the Governor-cum-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University, requesting the said authority to issue a release order so that he can join his parent institution i.e. Respondent No. 2 as soon as possible. Similar communication was also issued to the Registrar of the Dibrugarh University. 9. On 23.11.2021, the Governor’s Secretariat, Assam issued a communication to the Vice-Chancellor (In-Charge), Dibrugarh University informing that since the Petitioner has been removed by the Chancellor from the post of the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University, issuance of release order from his end as requested does not arise. It was further mentioned that necessary arrangements be made for early settlements of dues (if any) as regards the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University as per the standard norms and regulations. A copy of the communication was also endorsed to the Petitioner. 10. It was further mentioned that necessary arrangements be made for early settlements of dues (if any) as regards the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University as per the standard norms and regulations. A copy of the communication was also endorsed to the Petitioner. 10. The petitioner received the said communication on 23.11.2021 and on the very date, issued a communication to the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent No. 2 University stating, inter-alia, that the Petitioner requested the Governor of Assam-cum-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University to issue a release order for joining his parent post in the Respondent No. 2 University, however, he received the letter through mail from the Raj Bhavan, Guwahati that no separate release order will be issued and the removal order will itself suffice. It was also mentioned that the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University had also informed the Petitioner that as the said University was not the appointing authority of the Vice-Chancellor, the post which the Petitioner held, the said University was not in a position to issue any type of release order. On the basis thereof, the Petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent No. 2 to allow him to join in his parent post as the Professor of the Department of Management, Rajiv Gandhi University, at the earliest. 11. Pursuant thereto, on 24.11.2021, the Petitioner submitted a joining report to the Respondent No. 3 stating, inter-alia, that the Petitioner was given lien for a period of 5(five) years to join as the Vice-Chancellor in Dibrugarh University and as the Petitioner was removed from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University vide the order dated 22.11.2021, he had returned back to Rajiv Gandhi University and joined on 24.11.2021 in his parent post i.e. the Professor of the Department of Management, Rajiv Gandhi University. 12. On 25.11.2021, a communication was issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, wherein it was mentioned that the Petitioner must get release order from the Dibrugarh University, Assam along with his service details including leave encashment, leave accounts etc. It was further mentioned that Governor’s Secretariat at Para-II had requested the Dibrugarh University to take necessary settlements of dues (if any) as regards the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University as per the standard norms and regulations. It was further mentioned that Governor’s Secretariat at Para-II had requested the Dibrugarh University to take necessary settlements of dues (if any) as regards the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University as per the standard norms and regulations. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No. 3 requested the Registrar, Dibrugarh University to settle/clear any kind of dues (if any) in respect to the Petitioner and issue proper release order along with the details pertaining to his services at Dibrugarh University, Assam. A copy of the said communication dated 25.11.2021 was also endorsed with the Petitioner. 13. In continuation to the communication dated 25.11.2021 issued to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, another communication was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 3, thereby requesting the Petitioner to furnish the various documents/papers for consideration of the Petitioner’s joining at the Respondent No. 2 University. The said documents which were sought from the Petitioner are enumerated herein below: 1. Copy of order no. GSA 12/21/Pt.II/200-A, dated 22nd November, 2021 issued from Governor’s Secretariat, Assam. 2. Relieving order from Dibrugarh University, Assam. 3. LPC and Leave details including leave encashment. 4. Clearance Certificate from Vigilance Cell. 5. Affidavit (declaring no case pending duly signed by the 1st Class Magistrate). 6. Clearance Certificate from the Dibrugarh University, Assam. This communication has been put to challenge in the instant proceedings. 14. To the said communication dated 25.11.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3 to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, the latter issued a communication to Respondent No. 3 dated 06.12.2021, whereby it was stated that the Registrar, Dibrugarh University has received the copy of the order dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhavan, Guwahati, wherein the Petitioner was removed from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University with immediate effect. It was further mentioned that the Dibrugarh University Administration is not competent to issue release order to the Petitioner and the Dibrugarh University would intimate the Petitioner regarding the dues to be settled as per the rules and procedures of the University. 15. It was further mentioned that the Dibrugarh University Administration is not competent to issue release order to the Petitioner and the Dibrugarh University would intimate the Petitioner regarding the dues to be settled as per the rules and procedures of the University. 15. The Petitioner also issued a communication dated 15.12.2021 to the Respondent No. 3 in reply to the communication issued by the Respondent No. 3 dated 25.11.2021, wherein he stated that he had sent a letter by mail on 29.11.2021 followed by a hard copy on 30.11.2021 to the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University to provide relevant details for his joining in the Rajiv Gandhi University. The Petitioner also stated that he issued a reminder but has not received any response from the authority of the Dibrugarh University. Referring to the communication dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Secretary to the Governor of Assam as well as the communication dated 06.12.2021 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, wherein the stand of the said authorities to the issuance of the release order has been clearly stated, the Petitioner enclosed a copy of the affidavit signed before a 1st Class Magistrate, North Lakhimpur which would act as the certificate of evidence on the issues like no court case against the Petitioner, no enquiry or court case against the Petitioner from Vigilance Cell of Dibrugarh University and no any dues pending from the Petitioner’s side to the Dibrugarh University. On the basis of that, the Petitioner, therefore requested the Respondent No. 3 that the Petitioner be allowed to join in his parent post i.e. the Professor, Department of Management, Rajiv Gandhi University. 16. The Respondent No. 3 vide a communication dated 11.01.2022, to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, informed the latter that the Petitioner has been seeking for his joining in the Department of Management, Rajiv Gandhi University, without enclosing required documents/papers including release order, LPC, NOC, clearance certificate from the Vigilance Cell etc. from the Dibrugarh University and as the Dibrugarh University has released the Petitioner with proper documents/papers without production or submission of those relevant documents, the Respondent No. 2 is not in a position to consider the case of the Petitioner for joining back in the Respondent No. 2 University. from the Dibrugarh University and as the Dibrugarh University has released the Petitioner with proper documents/papers without production or submission of those relevant documents, the Respondent No. 2 is not in a position to consider the case of the Petitioner for joining back in the Respondent No. 2 University. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No. 3 again requested the Registrar, Dibrugarh University to consider the case of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner may be provided the release order by the University enabling him to join back in the Respondent No. 2 University in view of the affidavit submitted by the Petitioner and if the release order is not issued, then No Objection Certificate with LPC may be provided for allowing the Petitioner to join back in the Respondent No. 2 University. This communication has also been put to challenge before this Court. In view of the actions of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting the Petitioner to join his substantive post in respect to which he held a lien, the Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court, vide an order dated 10.02.2022 issued notice returnable by 07.03.2022 and it was further mentioned that interim order would be considered on the next returnable date. 17. Pursuant to the issuance of such notice, on 06.04.2022, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, preliminary objections were taken that no fundamental rights of the Petitioner has been affected and as such, the question of invoking the writ jurisdiction does not arise. It was also mentioned that the Petitioner’s grievances should be against the Governor of Assam-cum-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University as well as the Dibrugarh University. But the filing of the writ against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not maintainable. On merits, it was stated that the joining report of the Petitioner was not accepted by the authorities of the Rajiv Gandhi University on the ground that the Petitioner had not submitted the required documents for acceptance of his joining report before the authorities. It was further mentioned by referring to the communication dated 22.12.2021 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, whereby the Petitioner was informed regarding the issue of release order to the Petitioner. On a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition shows that the stand taken by the Respondent Nos. It was further mentioned by referring to the communication dated 22.12.2021 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University, whereby the Petitioner was informed regarding the issue of release order to the Petitioner. On a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition shows that the stand taken by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that there is no illegality on the part of the said Respondents in not accepting the joining report of the Petitioner in absence of the documents which ought to have been submitted. At this stage, if this Court takes into consideration the communication dated 22.11.2021, which was enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it would be seen that it is a communication issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University to the Petitioner regarding issuance of the release order. The said communication is in reply to the Petitioner’s letter dated 13.12.2021 and it was stated therein that in the 348th meeting of the Executive Council, Dibrugarh University held on 15.12.2021, the Executive Council directed to issue the release order to the Petitioner subject to receipt of NOC/Clearance Certificate from the various branches of the Dibrugarh University. It was further mentioned that the University Administration had initiated the process of obtaining the NOC/Clearance Certificate from the various branches of the said University and upon receipt of the same, the release order, as applicable, would be issued to the Petitioner. 18. Pursuant to the filing of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the matter was taken up for consideration of interim prayer by this Court. Vide the order dated 07.04.2022, taking into account the submission made by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, this Court directed that the Petitioner shall furnish one undertaking before the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and on furnishing of such undertaking, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall allow the Petitioner to join his services. It was further provided that the period of time within which the Petitioner had to submit the documents as required in terms with letter dated 25.11.2021, necessary order would be passed on 25.04.2022 after hearing the learned counsel of both the parties. 19. The records reveal that the Petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, again submitted his joining report on 11.04.2022 along with the undertaking. 19. The records reveal that the Petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, again submitted his joining report on 11.04.2022 along with the undertaking. The Respondent No. 3, however, vide a communication dated 13.04.2022, informed the Petitioner that in absence of clarity in the order on the time frame and the terms and conditions, the joining of the Petitioner in the Department of Management could not be accepted at the moment. It was also mentioned that a review petition is in the process of being filed before this Court on the documents/papers required for the joining back in the Respondent No. 2 University. It is only on receipt of further order/clarification from this Court, the joining could be considered. To the said communication, the Petitioner replied by a communication dated 18.04.2022, wherein he stated that the action on the part of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting the Petitioner to join was in violation to the order of this Court and as such, requested the Respondent No. 3 to permit the Petitioner to join. These aspects of the matter were brought on record by the Petitioner by way of filing an additional affidavit filed on 28.04.2022. 20. It is further relevant to take note of that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly filed a review petition seeking review of the order dated 07.04.2022 passed in the instant writ proceedings. The record reveals that the said review petition was withdrawn on 09.05.2022 and this Court granted the liberty to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to approach this Court by filing an appropriate petition under the appropriate provisions of law. Consequent thereto, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application on 21.05.2022 seeking alteration, modification of the order dated 07.04.2022. The said application was registered and numbered as I.A. (C) No. 85(AP)/2022. By the said application, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought modification of the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby sought that the Petitioner’s joining report should be provisional till submission of the relevant documents as per Annexure ‘L’ to the writ petition and on the failure of the Petitioner to produce the relevant documents, the Petitioner’s joining report would stand revoked automatically. 2 and 3 sought modification of the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby sought that the Petitioner’s joining report should be provisional till submission of the relevant documents as per Annexure ‘L’ to the writ petition and on the failure of the Petitioner to produce the relevant documents, the Petitioner’s joining report would stand revoked automatically. It was further prayed that another condition should be incorporated in the order dated 07.04.2022 to the effect that the Petitioner’s undertaking should be as per the satisfaction of the authorities of the Respondent No. 2 University. 21. This application, i.e. I.A. (C) No. 85(AP)/2022 came up for consideration before this Court on 23.05.2022. Taking into consideration that any decision passed in the interlocutory application would have the effect on the merits of the case, this Court, with the consent of all the parties had taken up the matter for final disposal. 22. In the meantime, while hearing was taken up on various dates, the Petitioner filed a contempt application alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 07.04.2022, 25.04.2022 and 09.05.2022 passed in the instant writ proceedings. The said contempt application was registered and numbered as Cont. Cas (C) No. 19(AP)/2022. Vide an order dated 25.05.2022, the said contempt application was tagged along with the instant writ petition. 23. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been appointed to a substantive post in the Respondent No. 2 University. On the basis of the lien so granted by the Respondent No. 2 University, the Petitioner joined as the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University. As the Petitioner had a lien over of the post held by him at the Respondent No. 2 University, the moment the Petitioner has been removed from the service, the Petitioner on the basis of the lien has a right to join the substantive post in the Respondent No. 2 University and accordingly, the Petitioner had submitted the joining report on 23.11.2021. The action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting the Petitioner to join on the basis of certain documents is absolutely illegal and amounts to violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 as well as his constitutional rights under Article 311 of the Constitution. The action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting the Petitioner to join on the basis of certain documents is absolutely illegal and amounts to violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 as well as his constitutional rights under Article 311 of the Constitution. The learned counsel referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another vs. S.N. Tiwari and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 700 submitted that lien is a right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he is appointed and he continues to hold the lien against that post till that person is appointed substantively to another post and then he acquires lien against the latter post. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that as the Petitioner holds a lien against a permanent post in the Rajiv Gandhi University, any action on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to not allow the Petitioner to join violates the rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution. The learned counsel further referring to the Ordinance published vide a notification dated 27.10.2020, draws the attention of this Court to Clause 14(c) and submits that a University Teacher who has acquired a lien on a post shall retain a lien on that post while on foreign service or holding a temporary post or officiating in another post. Further referring to Clause 14(e) which pertains to a termination of a lien, he submits that the University Teacher’s lien on a post shall in no circumstances be terminated even with his/her consent if the result shall be to leave him/her without a lien upon a permanent post. Unless his lien is transferred, a University Teacher holding substantively a permanent post shall retain lien on that post. He further submitted on the basis of Clause 14(e)(ii) that it shall not be correct to deny a University Teacher lien to a post he/she was holding substantively on the plea that he/she had not requested for retention of lien while submitting his/her Technical Resignation, or to relieve him/her with a condition that no lien shall be retained. He further submitted that the University Teacher’s lien on post shall stand terminated on his/her acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he/she is borne. He further submitted that the University Teacher’s lien on post shall stand terminated on his/her acquiring a lien on a permanent post outside the cadre on which he/she is borne. The counsel further submitted that as per the said Ordinance, no lien shall be retained where a University Teacher has proceeded on immediate absorption basis to a post or service outside his/her service/cadre/post in the University from the date of absorption; and on foreign service/deputation beyond the maximum limit admissible under the ordinances of the University/rules of Government of India issued from time to time. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that in the instant case, the Petitioner was granted the lien on being appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University vide orders dated 16.07.2018 and 30.03.2021. Under such circumstances, the Respondent Authorities, more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot stop the Petitioner as per law from joining the Respondent No. 2 University. He also submits that the action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not permitting the Petitioner to join his substantive post on which he holds a lien amounts to a malice in law as well as on facts, inasmuch as, it is on the basis of some irrelevant considerations, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not permitted the Petitioner to join his substantive post. The imposing of the conditions upon the Petitioner to get certain documents in respect to which the Petitioner has no power to get, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power on the part of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which is not permitted under law. The counsel also submits that the Petitioner since November, 2011, has been without salary and has not been able to join his service and as such, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should be directed that the Petitioner should be permitted to join and from the date the Petitioner had submitted his joining report i.e. on 23.11.2021, the Petitioner ought to be paid his salary and other consequential benefits, which the Petitioner is entitled to on and from 23.11.2021 as per his service conditions in the Respondent No. 2 University. 24. On the other hand, Mr. T. Gadi, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that there is no cause of action on the part of the Petitioner against the Respondent Nos. 24. On the other hand, Mr. T. Gadi, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that there is no cause of action on the part of the Petitioner against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, inasmuch as, a perusal of the impugned communications dated 25.11.2021 as well as 11.01.2022 would show that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also been pursuing with the Dibrugarh University for the purpose of getting documents so that the Petitioner can be permitted to join but the Dibrugarh University have failed to issue the said documents which had resulted in the situation. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner ought to have been aggrieved with the Respondent No. 4 and not with the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He further submitted that certain documents which have been mentioned out there in the communication dated 25.11.2022 are very relevant documents which the Petitioner has to produce before being permitted to join his post in the Respondent No. 2 University. He further submitted that every officer in Government service in terms of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules is required to maintain the service book. The Petitioner, as per the learned counsel, was functioning in the capacity as Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University from 2018 and as such, the Petitioner should produce the said service book wherein all the details pertaining to the Petitioner has been mentioned during period of service as the Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University. He further submitted that the documents which have been mentioned in the communication dated 25.11.2021 are very relevant documents and without the same, it would be difficult on the part of the Respondent No. 2 University to assess the service benefits which the Petitioner would be entitled to. He also submitted that under the Office Memorandum dated 10.03.2022 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, it has been mandated that grant of vigilance clearance in respect of officials of autonomous institutions/organizations is required. It was mentioned that in view of the Office Memorandum, the vigilance clearance is mandatory which needs to be signed by the CVO/HOD. 25. The Dibrugarh University i.e. the proforma Respondent No. 4 being represented by Mr. It was mentioned that in view of the Office Memorandum, the vigilance clearance is mandatory which needs to be signed by the CVO/HOD. 25. The Dibrugarh University i.e. the proforma Respondent No. 4 being represented by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel being asked as to whether the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University has a service book, he submits that there is no service book for the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University as the said office is for a period of 5(five) years and the services of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor of the said University is regulated by the Chancellor of the University as can be seen from Section 10(4) of the Dibrugarh University Act, 1965. 26. Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that a person who has been removed from service on the ground of charges of embezzlement incurs a disqualification and as such, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have rightly not permitted the Petitioner to join the Services at Rajiv Gandhi University. 27. On the basis of the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the Petitioner who has been substantively appointed to a permanent post in the Respondent No. 2 University and having been granted the lien to join as the Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University has a right upon his removal from the post of Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University to join his substantive post at the Respondent No. 2 University. 28. For answering the said point which arises for consideration, it would be relevant to take note of as to what a lien connotes. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal Khurana vs. State of Punjab, (1989) 4 SCC 99 observed that lien is not a word of art. It connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he was appointed. Therefore, a person is said to acquire a lien on post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier. It connotes the right of a civil servant to hold the post substantively to which he was appointed. Therefore, a person is said to acquire a lien on post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Sandhya Tomar, (2013) 11 SCC 357 explained the term lien as a civil right of a Government servant to hold the post “to which he has appointed substantively.” It was further observed that the necessary corollary to the aforesaid right is that such appointment must be in accordance with the law. A person can be said to have acquired lien as regards a particular post only when his appointment was confirmed and when he has been made permanent to the said post. The Supreme Court in the said decision after taking into account the various precedents of the Supreme Court observed that 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. In the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e. State of Rajasthan vs. S.N. Tiwari (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the lien of a Government employee over the previous post ends, if he is appointed to another permanent post on permanent basis and in such a case the lien of the employee shifts to the new permanent post. It was further observed that there is requirement of a formal termination of a lien over the previous permanent post. 29. This aspect can also be seen from Master Circular on Technical Resignation and lien in Central services issued on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2018 wherein it has been mentioned that the resignation is treated as a technical formality where a Government servant had applied through proper channel to the post in the same or some other department and is on selection required to resign for previous post for administrative reasons. The resignation would be treated as a technical resignation, if these conditions are made even if the Government servant had not mentioned the word “technical” while submitting his resignation. In the said Master Circular the concept of lien on a post and the termination of the lien have been mentioned. The resignation would be treated as a technical resignation, if these conditions are made even if the Government servant had not mentioned the word “technical” while submitting his resignation. In the said Master Circular the concept of lien on a post and the termination of the lien have been mentioned. It has been mentioned that the Government servant lien in the post may in no circumstances be terminated even with his consent if the result would be to leave him without a lien upon a permanent post. It is mentioned that unless his lien is transferred, a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains lien on that post and it would not be correct to deny a Government servant lien to a post he was holding substantively on the plea that he has not requested for retention of the lien while submitting his technical resignation or to relieve such a Government servant with a condition that no lien will be retained. It was further mentioned that a Government employee’s lien on a post shall stand terminated on the employees acquiring a lien on a permanent post (whether under the Central Government or the State Government) outside the cadre on which he is born. The Rajiv Gandhi University Ordinance so promulgated and published in the notification dated 27.10.2020 and more particularly, a perusal of Clause-14 shows that similar provisions as stipulated in the Master circular has also been incorporated in the said notification dated 27.10.2020, the details of which have already been mentioned hereinabove. 30. The facts of the instant case would show that the Petitioner was substantively appointed to permanent post in the Respondent No. 2 University. Upon being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor of Dibrugarh University vide the notification dated 04.07.2018, the Petitioner applied for lien and the Respondent No. 2 University vide an order dated 16.07.2018 granted lien to the Petitioner initially for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 17.07.2018 to 16.07.2021 and subsequently vide another order dated 30.03.2021 further extended the lien period for another period of 2 (two) years w.e.f. 17.07.2021 to 16.07.2023. Thus, it would be seen that the Petitioner had retained the lien to his substantive post at the Respondent No. 2 University. Therefore, as the Petitioner has a right to hold the post substantively to which he was appointed. 31. Thus, it would be seen that the Petitioner had retained the lien to his substantive post at the Respondent No. 2 University. Therefore, as the Petitioner has a right to hold the post substantively to which he was appointed. 31. The facts as could discerned would show that the Petitioner upon being removed from service as Vice-Chancellor vide the order dated 22.11.2021, on the same date, requested the Governor of Assam cum Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University to issue a release order so that he can join his substantive post at the Respondent No. 2 University. The Governor Secretariat vide a communication dated 23.11.2022 informed the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University that as the Petitioner was removed from service, the question of issuance of the release order does not arise and it was further directed the necessary arrangements be made for early settlement of any kind of dues (if any) as regards the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University as per the standard norms and regulations. The Petitioner on receipt of the said communication immediately on the same date i.e. on 23.11.2022 requested the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent No. 2 University to permit the Petitioner to join stating inter-alia about the communication dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Secretariat of Governor of Assam as well as also the verbal information to the Petitioner that the Dibrugarh University is not competent to issue the release order. Further to that on 24.11.2021, the Petitioner also submitted the joining report to the Respondent No. 3 with the copy of the order of removal as well as the letter received from the Governor’s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan on 23.11.2021. To the said communications issued by the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 issued a communication to the Registrar, Dibrugarh University to clear all kind of dues of the Petitioner and to issue proper release order alongwith details pertaining his services at Dibrugarh University. On the same date, vide another communication, the Respondent No. 3 had directed the Petitioner to produce various documents. The said communication has been put to challenge before this Court. It is also relevant to mention that the Petitioner out of the 6 (six) documents as sought for vide the communication dated 25.11.2022 had submitted the order dated 22.11.2021 as well as also an Affidavit declaring the various details. The said communication has been put to challenge before this Court. It is also relevant to mention that the Petitioner out of the 6 (six) documents as sought for vide the communication dated 25.11.2022 had submitted the order dated 22.11.2021 as well as also an Affidavit declaring the various details. The other documents so sought for, were documents pertaining to release of the Petitioner from the Dibrugarh University, LPC and leave details including leave encashment, clearance certificate from the Vigilance Cell, clearance certificate from Dibrugarh University, Assam. These documents in the opinion of this Court can be very well furnished by the Dibrugarh University and the Petitioner has no control to get the said documents as it is primarily dependent upon the issuance by the Dibrugarh University. More so, when the Petitioner’s removal order dated 22.11.2021, the communication issued by the Governor’s Secretariat dated 23.11.2021 and the communication dated 06.12.2021 shows that the services of the Petitioner with the Dibrugarh University came to an end with the order of removal dated 22.11.2021 and the communication dated 23.11.2021 and 06.12.2021 shows that the authorities concerned are not going to issue the release order. Insistence upon the release order to allow the Petitioner to join amounts to illegally depriving the Petitioner his civil right to hold his substantive post which is not permissible under law. Furthermore, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 counsels have not been able to show under what provision of law, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to join without the documents mentioned in the communication dated 25.11.2021 as well as the communication dated 11.01.2022. 32. It further reveals from another communication which had been put to challenge before this Court i.e. the communication dated 11.01.2022 whereby the Respondent No. 3 have requested the Registrar, Dibrugarh University to either provide the release order or issue a No Objection Certificate with the LPC which may permit the Respondent No. 2 University to allow the Petitioner to join back. The Dibrugarh University however till now have not done so and in that process the Petitioner has not been permitted to join to hold the post to which he has been appointed substantively. The Dibrugarh University however till now have not done so and in that process the Petitioner has not been permitted to join to hold the post to which he has been appointed substantively. It is difficult for this Court to comprehend that when the Petitioner holds a lien over a post to which he has been appointed substantively in the Respondent No. 2 University, how the said Respondent No. 2 University can stop the Petitioner from joining that too when the Petitioner’s services stood terminated vide the order dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Government Officer cum Chancellor, Dibrugarh. It is also incomprehensible as on one hand Governor Secretariat had issued a communication dated 23.11.2021 stating inter-alia that the question of issuance of release order does not arise and further vide another communication dated 06.12.2021, the Registrar, Dibrugarh University informs the Respondent No. 3 that the Dibrugarh University Administration is not competent to issue release order to the Petitioner and then vide another communication dated 22.12.2021 the Registrar, Dibrugarh University informs the Petitioner that the Executive Council has directed to issue the release order to the Petitioner subject to receipt of NOC/clearance certificates from various branches of the Dibrugarh University and the University Administration has initiated the process of obtaining the NOC/clearance certificates from the above branches. The communication dated 06.12.2021 issued by the Registrar, Dibrugarh University on the face of it is contrary to the communication dated 22.12.2021. It appears from the conduct of the officials of the both the Universities that on account their requirements, the Petitioner’s rights have been effected. The Petitioner has a lien on the substantive post to which he has been appointed in the Respondent No. 2 University and as such any action taken to deprive the Petitioner of his right has to be in accordance with law. The action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to not permit the Petitioner to join amounts to depriving the Petitioner of his right that too without due process. 33. In the opinion of this Court, once the Petitioner has been removed from his service as the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University, the Petitioner has a right to join back his parent post. The said action of the Respondent Nos. 33. In the opinion of this Court, once the Petitioner has been removed from his service as the Vice-Chancellor of the Dibrugarh University, the Petitioner has a right to join back his parent post. The said action of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not allowing the Petitioner to join also in the opinion of this Court violates mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as the Petitioner has a right to go back to his parent department as he had a lien over the post in which he was substantively appointed. The insistence upon the release order and the other documents in spite of the communication dated 23.11.2021 and 06.12.2021 in the opinion of this Court amounts to malice in law as the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have taken into consideration materials which are not relevant and pertinent and thereby debarred the Petitioner from joining his services in the Respondent No. 2 University. 34. The submission made by Mr. Ratan, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 cannot also be accepted as debarring the Petitioner from joining as being disqualified on account of the removal from service from the post of the Vice-Chancellor, Dibrugarh University would be imposing a penalty upon the Petitioner in the manner not conceptualized in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 35. Consequently, this Court therefore directs the Respondent No. 2 University to permit the Petitioner to join his post to which the Petitioner was substantively appointed on the basis of a certified copy of this order being produced. As regards the documents which have been mentioned in the communications dated 25.11.2021 and 11.01.2022, the concerned officials of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are directed to liaison amongst themselves so that the documents can be exchanged between the said two Universities. The Petitioner shall provide assistance as and when necessary. It is further directed that taking into account that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not permitted the Petitioner to join thereby effecting the rights and entitlement of the Petitioner to join his post in which he has been substantively appointed, the joining of the Petitioner shall date back to 24.11.2021 on which date the Petitioner has submitted his joining report and the Petitioner shall also be entitled to all his wages and service benefits accordingly. 36. With above observations, the instant petition stands disposed of.