M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAKversusAJIT SINGH NANDAL AND ANR.

A                             M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK
                                                                                     ) ...
                                           v.
                            AJIT SINGH NANDAL AND ANR.

                                 SEPTEMBER 12, 2007

B                 ITARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.]



             Service Law:

             Post held by an employee declared by University Notification as
C vacant-Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming the
     notification to be null and void-Suit dismissed by trial court but decreed
     by first appellate court holding that declaration of post as vacant amounted
     to removal of the employee from service and as no inquiry in compliance with
     relevant rules was held, imposition of major penalty could not be sustained-
D    Second appeal of University dismissed Held: There is no reason to entertain
     the instant appeal as no case has been made out to interfere with the
     judgment passed in regular second appeal-Constitution of India-Article
     136.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CiviJ Appeal No. 4200 of2007.
E
          From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.2006 of the High Court of
     Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1735 of
     2005.

             S. Janani and Nidhesh Gupta for the Appellant.
F
           Ramesh K. Haritash, D.K. Thakur, Kailash Chand and Prashant Bhushan
     for the Respondents.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

                                         ORDER
G
             1. Leave granted.

          2. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and decree
     dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at·
If                                        930
            M.D.UNIVERSITY,ROHTAKv.AJITSINGHNANDAL                         931

Chandigarh in Regular Second appeal No. 1735 of 2005 whereby the High              A
Court had dismissed the regular second appeal filed by M.D. University,
Rohtak - appellant herein - and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court
against which the said second appeal was filed by the appellant.

      3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under.
                                                                                   B
      4. A suit was filed by Ajit Singh Nanda! for declaration and mandatory
injunction claiming that the notification dated 29th July, 1997 by which the
post held by him was declared vacant with effect from 15th January, 1996 was
illegal and null and void. On contest, the suit was dismissed by the trial court
and an appeal preferred by the respondent- Ajit Singh Nanda!- before the
appellate court was allowed, inter alia, on the findings that Ajit Singh Nanda\    C
was permitted to resume his duty on 11th October 1996 by the Registrar of
M.D. University without imposing any condition, namely, requirement as to
taking prior sanction of the Vice Chancellor, M.D. University and as the
declaration of the post held by Ajit Singh Nanda! as vacant amounted to his
removal from service and also that since no enquiry in compliance with Clause      D
2(8) of Part II of the Rules was held, the imposition of the aforesaid major
penalty could not be sustained. On the aforesaid findings the regular second
appeal filed by M.D. University, Rohtak before the High Court was dismissed
by the impugned judgment. This appeal in respect of which leave has already
been granted has arisen from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court
dismissing the regular second appeal.                                              E
      5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering
the materials on record, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal
as the appellant has failed to satisfy us that the grounds on which the regular
second appeal was dismissed could at all be said to be non sustainable.            F
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the High Court
passed in the second appeal. There will be no order as to costs. It will now
be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution case instituted by
him to execute the decree in accordance with law.

RP.                                                        Appeal dismissed.       G