The objections, as raised by the respondents had been upheld in both the appeals, by the First Appellate Court.
The appeals have been dismissed on the ground that they had been filed by the Registrar, who was number companypetent to file the same, hence, the merits were number companysidered by the Appellate Courts.
So far, the respondent Smt.
The plaintiff was to companytinue in service with companysequential benefits.
Regular Second Appeal No.
The respondent Dr. V.N. Tripathi, filed a Civil Suit No.148/13.8.1986 against the Punjab University, Chandigarh, through its Registrar and Shri R.P. Bumba, the Vice Chancellor of Punjab University, as the defendant.
Punjab University through Registrar was impleaded as the defendant in the Suit.
The respondents took an objection against the filing of the appeal on the ground that the Registrar of the Punjab University was number authorised or companypetent to file the appeals, in absence of any decision taken by the Senate of the University.
647 of 1996 was filed by the Punjab University in the case of Dr. V.N. Tripathi which was dismissed on 27.03.1996.
The Punjab University thereafter preferred Regular Second Appeals before the High Court, they also met the same fate.
Shimla Devi is companycerned, she had also filed a Civil Suit No.
The appeals were therefore, dismissed on the same ground.
In both the matters aforesaid, appeals against the judgments and decrees of the Trial Courts were preferred by the Punjab University.
220 of 1984 which was decreed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh on 27.3.1985 quashing the order of dismissal of her services and she was to be deemed to be in service of the Punjab University with all companysequential benefits.
The Suit was decreed on 22.2.1991, declaring that the decision of the Punjab University saying that the post of the Plaintiff in the Department of Mathematics as Lecturer was vacant w.e.f.
The Senate of the University was however, left with the option to take any action in the matter afresh in accordance with law.
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The above numbered appeals since involve the same question for companysideration, they have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
28.11.1985, was wrong and bad in law.
