Dr Maharaj Singh Kakaran vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 28523 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030182192025
DR MAHARAJ SINGH KAKARAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Mohammad Amir Khan-
Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Devraj Dixit- Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.
Shri K.S. Tomar - Government Advocate for the State.
Reserved on : 29.09.2026
Pronounced on : 29.10.2026
JUDGMENT
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking following relief (s):-
"(i) That, the impugned orders dated 24.08.2024 (Annexure P/1),
27.08.2016 (Annexure P/2) and 13.04.2017 (Annexure P/3) be
directed to be quashed.
(ii) That, the respondents may be directed to henceforth extend the
benefit of salary, pension and other post retiral dues to the petitioner
from the day the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and
upto superannuation from the date the petitioner submitted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

2
joining, the respondents be directed to pay salary to him.(iii) That,
other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case may also be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Research Associate (Statistics) in the erstwhile Jawaharlal Nehru
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur and thereafter appointed as Assistant
Professor/Junior Scientist on 12.02.1985. He was granted Senior Grade with
effect from 01.04.1993, promoted as Associate Professor with effect from
01.04.1998 and, upon establishment of the respondent-University, promoted as
Professor (CAS) with effect from 01.04.2008. Thus, the petitioner was a
permanent employee substantively holding a permanent post in the respondent-
University. In the year 2008, he was selected and appointed as Principal of
Rashtriya Kisan (PG) College, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh and, vide order dated
04.09.2008, respondent No.2 permitted him to accept the said assignment for
three years while retaining his lien in the University. He was accordingly relieved
on 03.02.2009 and joined as Principal on 04.02.2009. His foreign service was
thereafter extended from time to time, lastly vide order dated 05.09.2013.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s appointment as Principal
became the subject matter of litigation before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and thereafter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated
20.11.2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted the selected candidates to
continue subject to their undertaking to revert to their original posts and refund
the difference of salary in the event of failure in the litigation, which undertaking
was also furnished by the petitioner. The Allahabad High Court subsequently set
aside the select lists vide order dated 23.04.2012. The petitioner, being one of the
selected candidates, challenged the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
where initially interim protection was granted on 14.08.2012. Ultimately, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

3
proceedings were dismissed on 15.07.2016, affirming the order passed by the
Allahabad High Court. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner returned and
submitted his joining before the respondent-University, but he was not permitted
to rejoin his substantive post.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner cannot
be blamed for not returning to the respondent-University during the pendency of
the proceedings, as he continued in the post of Principal pursuant to the interim
protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Upon dismissal of the
proceedings in July 2016, he immediately returned and submitted his joining.
Despite this, respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.08.2016, terminated the
petitioner’s lien with retrospective effect from 02.02.2014. Such retrospective
termination of lien, particularly without any fault or deliberate abandonment of
service on the part of the petitioner, is wholly impermissible. It is further
submitted that the respondents themselves recognised the subsistence of the
petitioner’s lien in the provisional seniority list dated 26.04.2014, wherein his
name was shown at Serial No.75 with his status as being on lien at R.K. (PG)
College, Shamli. Even thereafter, respondent No.2 sought information regarding
the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide letter dated 11.09.2017, which was duly furnished by the petitioner on
25.09.2017. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 16.03.2018, but
the respondents neither permitted him to join nor granted him the consequential
relief. Learned counsel submits that under Fundamental Rules 12-A, 13, 14 and
14-A, the petitioner’s lien on his permanent substantive post was protected and
could not have been terminated arbitrarily or retrospectively. Being a Class-I
officer substantively holding the post of Professor, the petitioner’s lien could not
have been terminated by the Vice Chancellor without following the prescribed
procedure. No resolution of the Executive Council or order of the competent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

4
authority was obtained, nor was any enquiry conducted or opportunity of hearing
afforded to the petitioner, despite the serious civil and pensionary consequences
flowing from such action. If the respondents were of the opinion that the
petitioner had failed to return within the permissible period, they were required to
conduct an appropriate enquiry and take a decision in accordance with law. The
order dated 27.08.2016 was therefore passed in violation of the Fundamental
Rules and principles of natural justice.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 27.08.2016 and 13.04.2017 in W.P. No.12155/2019.
During pendency of the said petition, the respondents passed order dated
06.01.2023, on the basis of which the writ petition was disposed of on
23.06.2023 with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation.
Thereafter, R.P. No.11/2024 was partly allowed, against which the petitioner
preferred W.A. No.2310/2024, which was allowed on 28.01.2025 and the review
petition was restored. Subsequently, R.P. No.11/2024 was dismissed in default on
16.06.2025 and the respondents’ MCC No.2108/2025 seeking restoration was
also dismissed on 01.07.2025. Despite the aforesaid proceedings and the earlier
order dated 06.01.2023, the respondents passed the impugned order dated
24.08.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s representation without properly considering
the earlier proceedings, without affording an opportunity of hearing and without
conducting any enquiry. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents have
incorrectly stated that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner was in fact appellant No.6 in SLP
No.24054/2012 and the proceedings culminated in the judgment reported in 2016
(14) SCC 18. The petitioner has already placed on record the relevant particulars
of the proceedings. The respondents’ assertion regarding the petitioner’s absence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

5
from the said proceedings is therefore contrary to the record. It is lastly submitted
that the petitioner had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
permission/direction to join his original post and was permitted to withdraw the
application with liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law. Thus, the
petitioner cannot be left remediless after having returned to the respondent-
University immediately upon conclusion of the litigation. The petitioner was
entitled to rejoin his substantive post and could not have been deprived of his lien
merely because his appointment as Principal in Uttar Pradesh was ultimately set
aside. Accordingly, the orders dated 24.08.2024, 27.08.2016 and 13.04.2017,
being arbitrary, retrospective, without jurisdiction and violative of the
Fundamental Rules and principles of natural justice, deserve to be quashed and
set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to rejoin his substantive post with all
consequential benefits, including salary, pension and post-retiral dues in
accordance with law.
5. Per contra, l earned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the
present petition is misconceived, highly belated and liable to be dismissed. The
petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor in the College of
Agriculture, Sehore, under Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur
and was thereafter promoted as Associate Professor (CAS) with effect from
01.04.1998. While serving in the University, he applied pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission
for appointment to the post of Principal and was selected and appointed as
Principal of R.K. College, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. He was relieved by the
respondent-University on 03.02.2009 pursuant to the permission granted to
accept the said assignment, initially retaining his lien for a period of three years.
His lien was thereafter extended from time to time, lastly from 03.02.2013 to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

6
02.02.2014 vide order dated 05.09.2013. Learned counsel submits that under the
applicable regulations and resolutions of the erstwhile JNKVV as well as the
respondent-University, a University employee who had completed the requisite
period of satisfactory service could retain lien while on foreign
service/deputation only for the period prescribed therein. The applicable
provisions permitted retention of lien for a maximum period of five years, subject
to the requisite approval and mutual arrangement with the outside employer. The
said provisions were binding upon the petitioner. Since the petitioner's lien had
already expired on 02.02.2014, he was specifically informed vide letter dated
30.01.2014 to report before the Registrar of the University immediately on
completion of the lien period. He was again directed to submit his joining vide
letter dated 02.04.2014, but he failed to do so. It is further submitted that the
petitioner, despite having been appointed against a clear vacant and permanent
post of Principal in Uttar Pradesh after undergoing the regular selection process,
could not retain lien on the substantive post in the respondent-University
indefinitely or simultaneously hold lien on two permanent posts. The petitioner
was also informed vide communications dated 06.02.2014 and 08.02.2014 that he
could not retain both posts simultaneously and was advised to submit his
resignation. The Administrative Committee of the College at Shamli also
informed the University regarding his appointment. The petitioner's request for
continuation of lien was not accepted by the competent authority, and therefore
there was no basis for further extension of his lien.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 further submits that the
petitioner has wrongly relied upon the proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court arising out of the litigation concerning his appointment as Principal. The
petitioner was not a party to the proceedings in State of U.P. and others Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

7
Bharat Singh and others, and the undertaking given before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by the selected candidates to revert to their earlier posts in the event of
failure in the litigation was not communicated to or binding upon the respondent-
University. In any event, such undertaking could not confer upon the petitioner
any right to continue his lien contrary to the applicable University rules and
resolutions. The fact that the petitioner's appointment as Principal was ultimately
upheld or set aside in the said litigation does not revive a lien which had already
expired on 02.02.2014. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is also guilty
of delay and laches. He was specifically directed in January 2014 to join the
respondent-University upon expiry of his lien and was again informed in April
2014, but he did not submit his joining. Instead, he continued to serve as
Principal in Uttar Pradesh and approached the respondent-University only after
the litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded in July 2016. His
joining was thereafter declined, as his lien had already come to an end. The
petitioner has not satisfactorily explained why he did not challenge the
communication dated 30.01.2014 or submit his joining pursuant to the
subsequent communication dated 02.04.2014. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has suppressed material facts, including the proceedings arising from
his earlier representation and the Contempt Petition (Civil) No.860/2018 filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was subsequently dismissed as
withdrawn. The petitioner has therefore not approached this Court with complete
disclosure of the relevant facts. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner's
reliance upon Fundamental Rules 12-A, 13, 14 and 14-A is misplaced. Under
Fundamental Rule 9(13), lien means the title of a Government servant to hold
substantively a permanent post. Fundamental Rule 12-A specifically provides
that upon substantive appointment to another permanent post, a Government
servant acquires lien on the new post and ceases to hold lien previously acquired
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

8
on any other post. Likewise, under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d), a Government
servant's lien on a post stands terminated upon his acquiring lien on a permanent
post outside the cadre. In the present case, the petitioner, after undergoing a
regular selection process, was appointed against a clear permanent post of
Principal in Uttar Pradesh and had continuously worked there from 2009 to 2016.
Thus, he could not claim a continuing lien on the post in the respondent-
University contrary to the applicable rules. Learned counsel further submits that
the order dated 27.08.2016 was therefore only consequential to the
expiry/termination of the petitioner's lien and was passed in accordance with the
applicable rules and University resolutions. There was no requirement to conduct
a departmental enquiry or grant a separate opportunity of hearing for termination
of a lien which had already expired in accordance with the prescribed terms.
Consequently, the petitioner has no vested right to rejoin the post of Associate
Professor or to claim salary, pensionary benefits or other consequential benefits
on that basis.
7. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 that in the earlier
round of litigation, the petitioner had filed W.P. No.12155/2019. During the said
proceedings, an order dated 06.01.2023 was relied upon, pursuant to which
directions were issued regarding consideration of his representation. The
respondents thereafter pursued the available legal remedy by filing a review
petition, and the subsequent orders passed in the writ petition, review petition
and writ appeal ultimately resulted in consideration of the petitioner's
representation. In compliance with the directions of the Court, the respondents
passed a detailed order dated 24.08.2024 rejecting the petitioner's representation,
which is under challenge in the present petition along with the orders dated
27.08.2016 and 13.04.2017. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

9
dismissal of the review petition for want of prosecution and dismissal of MCC
No.2108/2025 seeking restoration do not alter the merits of the controversy,
particularly when the petitioner's representation had already been decided and the
said decision was also noticed in the order passed in W.A. No.2310/2024. The
respondents have also preferred W.A. No.2384/2025 challenging the orders
passed in the restoration proceedings as well as the earlier proceedings, which is
pending consideration before the Division Bench. It is lastly submitted that the
petitioner cannot derive any right to rejoin the respondent-University merely on
the basis of the dismissal of the litigation concerning his appointment as
Principal. His lien had independently expired on 02.02.2014 in accordance with
the applicable University rules and resolutions, despite which he failed to report
for duty when specifically directed to do so. The impugned orders are therefore
neither arbitrary nor without jurisdiction and do not call for interference. The
petitioner is consequently not entitled to the relief of quashing of the impugned
orders or to any consequential claim for salary, pension, post-retiral dues or other
benefits.
8. No other ground has been urged by learned counsel for the parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The principal question for consideration is whether the respondents were
justified in terminating the petitioner's lien retrospectively with effect from
02.02.2014 and whether the subsequent order dated 24.08.2024 rejecting his
representation can be sustained in law.
11. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a permanent employee of the
respondent-University and was holding a substantive post before accepting the
assignment as Principal at Shamli. The University itself had permitted him to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

10
accept the outside assignment while retaining his lien, subject to the applicable
rules and conditions.
12. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner's appointment as Principal
became the subject matter of judicial proceedings. He continued in the said post
during the pendency of those proceedings and, according to his case, returned to
the University immediately after the proceedings concluded in July 2016.
13. The respondents have placed considerable reliance upon the expiry of the
petitioner's lien on 02.02.2014. As per the contention of the respondents, after
that date, the petitioner had no right to claim his original post. However, the
legality of the action taken by the respondents must be examined in the light of
the applicable rules, the terms of the permission granted to the petitioner, the
subsequent extensions and the nature of his appointment at Shamli.
14. Rule 14-A(d) of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:
15. Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) provides that the lien of a Government servant
on a post shall stand terminated upon his acquiring a lien on a permanent post
outside the cadre to which he belongs. The rule, therefore, deals with a situation
in which the employee acquires a lien on another permanent post.
16. In Dr. G.P. Dwivedi v. State of M.P. And Others, decided on 08.02.2005
in W.P(s) No.1343/2005, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)
considered the effect of Fundamental Rule 14-A(d). The principle explained in
that decision is that when an employee acquires a lien on a permanent post
outside his original cadre, the lien on the earlier post stands terminated in
accordance with the rule. The decision also discusses the principle laid down in
1997 (6) SCC 538.
Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana reported in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

11
17. This Court is conscious of the aforesaid legal position. An employee
cannot claim that his original lien must continue indefinitely if the conditions
prescribed under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) have been fulfilled. Equally, the
respondents must establish that the conditions necessary for applying the rule are
satisfied in the particular case.
18. The mere fact that the petitioner was selected and worked as Principal at
Shamli does not, by itself, conclude every question regarding acquisition of lien.
The nature of the appointment, the applicable service conditions and the terms on
which the University permitted him to accept the assignment are relevant to
determine whether he acquired a lien on the outside post within the meaning of
Fundamental Rule 14-A(d).
19. The respondents were therefore required to examine the petitioner's service
conditions and the relevant appointment and extension orders before reaching a
final conclusion regarding termination of his lien. They were also required to
consider the legal effect of the proceedings concerning his appointment as
Principal and his claim that he sought to return to the University immediately
after those proceedings concluded.
20. It is important to clarify that the subsequent setting aside or failure of an
appointment does not automatically revive an earlier lien. Similarly, the
undertaking furnished before a court cannot, by itself, override the applicable
service rules. However, the undertaking and the judicial proceedings were
relevant circumstances that required consideration while determining the
petitioner's service rights.
21. In the present case, the petitioner specifically raised these issues in his
representation. The respondents were required to determine whether
Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) applied to his case and, if so, from what date and with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

12
what consequences. The decision could not rest merely on the statement that the
petitioner's lien had expired on 02.02.2014 without properly addressing the
relevant service conditions and the material circumstances placed before the
authority.
22. The principle laid down in the case of Dr. G.P. Dwivedi (supra) does not
dispense with the requirement of examining whether the conditions of
Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) are satisfied. The respondents must establish the
factual basis for applying the rule to the petitioner. The legal consequence of
acquiring a lien on another permanent post cannot be confused with the mere fact
of working in another institution.
23. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner's claim required a proper
examination of the relevant rules and documents. The impugned orders cannot be
sustained merely on the basis of a general assertion that the petitioner had
accepted another appointment.
24. The petitioner has also contended that his lien was terminated
retrospectively without granting him an opportunity to explain his position. The
respondents submit that no separate hearing was necessary because the lien had
already expired under the applicable rules.
25. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court emphasised that State action must be fair, just and reasonable.
The principles of natural justice require a fair decision-making process,
particularly where an administrative decision has serious consequences for an
individual's rights.
26. Similarly, in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010)
9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the importance of recording
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

13
reasons in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions. A reasoned order shows
that the authority has considered the relevant facts and applied its mind to the
issues raised by the affected person.
27. In the present case, the question whether the petitioner's lien had legally
ceased was itself disputed. The consequences of the decision extended to his
substantive service rights and his claim for pension and other retiral benefits. In
such circumstances, the authority was required to examine the relevant material
and give reasons for its conclusion.
28. The Court is not holding that a separate departmental enquiry is mandatory
in every case involving termination of lien. The requirement depends upon the
applicable rules and the nature of the dispute. However, where the employee
raises material issues concerning the terms of his appointment, the extension of
lien and the effect of judicial proceedings, those issues cannot be rejected without
proper consideration. The respondents were therefore required to consider the
petitioner's case in a fair manner and determine the applicability of Fundamental
Rule 14-A(d) on the basis of the relevant documents. The absence of such
consideration materially affects the legality of the impugned decision.
29. The record shows that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P. No. 12155/2019. During the pendency of those proceedings, the
respondents passed an order dated 06.01.2023, and the writ petition was disposed
of on 23.06.2023 with directions concerning consideration of the petitioner's
representation. Subsequent review and appellate proceedings also took place.
30. The petitioner has contended that, despite the earlier proceedings, his
representation was rejected by order dated 24.08.2024 without properly
examining the relevant facts. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

14
representation was considered and that the subsequent proceedings do not alter
the legal position concerning expiry of lien.
31. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the existence of
earlier litigation does not, by itself, establish that the petitioner is entitled to all
the reliefs claimed. At the same time, the subsequent rejection of his
representation must independently satisfy the requirements of a lawful and
reasoned decision.
32. The respondents were required to address the specific question whether the
petitioner's lien had terminated under Fundamental Rule 14-A(d), having regard
to the nature of his appointment at Shamli and the applicable service conditions.
They were also required to consider the effect of the permission and extensions
granted by the University and the circumstances in which the petitioner claimed
to have returned after the conclusion of the judicial proceedings.
33. The impugned orders, when examined in the context of these issues,
cannot be sustained without a proper determination of the petitioner's service
rights under the applicable rules.
34. The respondents have argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay because the order terminating the lien was passed in August
2016.
35. It is true that a writ petition may be refused where a person approaches the
Court after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. However, in the present case,
the record reflects earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner, including W.P.
No. 12155/2019, the subsequent review proceedings, W.A. No. 2310/2024 and
the decision on his representation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

15
36. The subsequent order dated 24.08.2024 rejecting the petitioner's
representation is also under challenge. The procedural history must therefore be
considered as a whole rather than examining the date of the original order in
isolation.
37. In the facts of this case, the objection of delay and laches does not justify
sustaining the impugned orders without examining whether the respondents
correctly applied Fundamental Rule 14-A(d) and considered the relevant service
conditions. The objection is accordingly rejected to that extent. This finding does
not mean that every claim for monetary benefits arising from the disputed period
is automatically free from the consequences of delay or limitation.
38. The petitioner has sought salary, continuity of service, pension and other
retiral benefits. These claims arise from the dispute concerning the termination of
his lien and his right to return to the substantive post in the University.
39. However, setting aside the impugned orders does not automatically entitle
the petitioner to full back wages for the entire disputed period. The entitlement to
salary for a period during which the petitioner did not actually work at the
University must be determined in accordance with the applicable service rules
and the established facts.
40. The respondents must therefore examine the petitioner's claim for
continuity of service, salary, pension and other retiral benefits after determining
his service status under the applicable rules. While doing so, they shall consider
whether the petitioner was prevented from joining despite his willingness to
return and what consequences follow from the legally correct determination of
his lien.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

16
41. The authority shall pass a reasoned order dealing separately with the claim
for back wages, continuity of service and retiral benefits. It shall not reject these
claims merely on the assumption that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned his
substantive post without examining the relevant record.
42. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned
orders cannot be sustained in their present form because the petitioner's claim
concerning the termination of his lien required proper consideration under the
applicable rules, particularly Fundamental Rule 14-A(d), and in the light of the
relevant service documents and judicial proceedings.
43. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 rejecting the petitioner's
representation is hereby quashed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.08.2016 terminating the
petitioner's lien retrospectively with effect from 02.02.2014, and the
consequential order dated 13.04.2017, are also quashed.
(iii) The respondents shall determine the petitioner's service status
and his claim concerning continuation or restoration of lien on his
substantive post in accordance with the applicable Fundamental
Rules, University regulations and the terms of the permission and
extensions granted to him.
(iv) While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall
specifically examine whether the petitioner acquired a lien on a
permanent post at Shamli within the meaning of Fundamental Rule
14-A(d). The decision shall be based on the relevant appointment
orders, service conditions and other material documents.
(v) The respondents shall also consider the effect of the judicial
proceedings concerning the petitioner's appointment as Principal,
the circumstances in which he continued in that post, and his claim
that he returned to the University immediately after the proceedings
concluded.
(vi) The competent authority shall determine the petitioner's
entitlement to continuity of service, salary, back wages, pension and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM

17
other retiral benefits in accordance with law, after considering the
applicable service rules and the findings regarding his service status.
(vii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by passing a
reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The decision shall be communicated to
the petitioner.
44. It is clarified that the petitioner shall not be treated as automatically
entitled to full back wages for the entire disputed period merely because the
impugned orders have been quashed. His monetary claims shall be determined
separately in accordance with the applicable rules and the findings recorded by
the competent authority.
45. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Avi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 30-Oct-26
10:51:25 AM