The Director vs Dr. Arif Khan
2026 Latest Caselaw 556 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

The Director vs Dr. Arif Khan on 16 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                     1




         Digitally
                                                                2026:CGHC:12559-DB
         signed by
         ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI                                                                 NAFR
TIWARI   Date:
         2026.03.16
         17:47:51
         +0530
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                           WA No. 223 of 2026

                1 - The Director National Institute of Technology, G.E. Road, Raipur,
                District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                2 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Shastri
                Bhawan, New Delhi.
                                                                           ... Appellants
                                                   versus
                Dr. Arif Khan S/o Shir Safiulla Khan Aged About 52 Years R/o Quarter
                No.D-3, Nit Campus, Ge Road, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant No.1 : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Appellant No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General (through Video Conferencing) For Respondent : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for appellant No.1

and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General

appearing for appellant No.2 as well as Ms. Hamida Siddiqui,

learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following

relief(s):-

"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1705 of 2023;

(iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to uphold the validity of the Board of Governors' decision dated 21.02.2023 and the consequential order dated 23.02.2023;

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the Respondent had no right to seek continuation beyond the expiry of his contractual term;

(v) Thạt, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the circumstances of the case.

(vi) That, the Cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the appellant."

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS

No.1705/2023 (Dr. Arif Khan v. Union of India and another),

whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent has

been disposed of.

4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were

that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Registrar in

the National Institute of Technology, Raipur pursuant to an

advertisement dated 24.01.2020 issued by the Institute inviting

applications for one vacant post of Registrar. The advertisement

stipulated that the recruitment would be governed by the

Recruitment Rules, 2019, which were annexed thereto. Although

the recruitment process was initially delayed due to the outbreak

of the COVID-19 pandemic, a duly constituted

Selection/Recruitment Committee was eventually formed

comprising the Director, NIT Raipur, one Professor from NIT

Jamshedpur, the Registrar of NIT Jalandhar, and a retired Chief

Engineer from Raipur, with respondent No.2 therein acting as the

Chairman of the Committee.

5. Pursuant to the said selection process, the writ petitioner was

selected and appointed to the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur vide

order dated 22.02.2021, and he joined the said post on

24.02.2021. It was the case of the writ petitioner that the

appointment was made in accordance with the Recruitment

Rules, 2019, which prescribe that the post of Registrar is to be

filled for a fixed tenure of five years, subject to the prescribed

conditions. It was further pleaded that during the course of his

service, the writ petitioner discharged his duties with sincerity and

dedication. His performance was placed for review before the

52nd Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 25.02.2022. In

the said meeting, the writ petitioner participated as the presenting

officer only to the extent permissible and thereafter recused

himself when the agenda relating to review of his performance

was taken up for consideration. The Board of Governors, after

deliberation, found the performance of the writ petitioner to be

satisfactory and ratified the approval accorded by the Chairman

for confirmation of his appointment for a period of five years with

effect from the date of joining. The said decision of the Board of

Governors was communicated to the writ petitioner vide letter

dated 10.03.2022. However, according to the writ petitioner, no

formal order confirming or extending his appointment for a fixed

tenure of five years was issued by respondent No.2 therein

despite the clear mandate contained in the Recruitment Rules,

2019 and Clause 21(1) of the NIT Statutes, which provide that the

Registrar shall be appointed for a fixed term not exceeding five

years on deputation or contract basis.

6. It was further case of the writ petitioner that being aggrieved by

the non-issuance of a formal order confirming his tenure, he

submitted a representation dated 11.03.2022 to respondent No.2

therein. He also contended that in several other National Institutes

of Technology across the country, including NIT Srinagar and NIT

Surat, Registrars had been appointed for a fixed tenure of five

years in accordance with the statutory provisions, and therefore a

different and discriminatory yardstick was being applied in his

case. The writ petitioner further pleaded that during his tenure

certain complaints were made by some individuals within the

Institute regarding his appointment. However, those complaints

were examined and replies were furnished by the Chairperson of

the Recruitment Committee as well as by respondent No.2

therein, and at no point of time was it found that the appointment

of the writ petitioner suffered from any irregularity or illegality.

When the writ petitioner raised the issue regarding discrepancy in

the nature and tenure of his appointment before respondent Nos.1

and 2 therein i.e. appellants herein, the matter was placed as

Agenda Item No.55.6 in the 55th Meeting of the Board of

Governors held on 17.10.2022; however, the issue was deferred

for consideration in a subsequent meeting. It was also alleged by

the writ petitioner that thereafter certain powers vested in him

were curtailed and transferred to other officials of the Institute vide

letter dated 11.08.2022. Subsequently, by order dated

06.01.2023, his financial powers were withdrawn without affording

him any opportunity of hearing, which according to him was in

violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the

provisions of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007,

particularly Section 18(1), which declares the Registrar to be the

custodian of the funds of the Institute.

7. The writ petitioner asserted that his service conditions are

governed by the provisions of the National Institutes of

Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes framed thereunder in the year

2009, and the Recruitment Rules, 2019, all of which clearly

provide that the Registrar is to be appointed for a fixed tenure of

five years and also delineate the duties and powers attached to

the said office. According to the writ petitioner, despite the

aforesaid statutory framework, he was subjected to arbitrary and

prejudicial treatment by the respondent authorities.

8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2023 withdrawing his

financial powers, the writ petitioner approached this Court by filing

Writ Petition No. WPS/897/2023, wherein pleadings have already

been completed. It was further contended that during the

pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent authorities, with

a predetermined intent, ultimately removed the writ petitioner from

service without following the procedure established by law and

without there being a duly appointed Director, which according to

the writ petitioner was ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

9. Being aggrieved by the said action, the respondent/writ petitioner

preferred the writ petition bearing WPS No.1705/2023 before the

learned Single Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated

19.12.2025.

10. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated

19.12.2025, the appellants/respondents therein have approached

this Court by filing the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned

judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge

is wholly unsustainable both in law as well. It is contended that the

learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the material

available on record in its proper perspective and has proceeded

on erroneous assumptions. According to the appellants, the

learned Single Judge has incorrectly treated the case as one

involving termination having civil consequences, whereas in

reality the case pertains merely to non-extension of a contractual

engagement. It is submitted that the respondent was appointed as

Registrar on a short-term contractual basis, subject to review and

fulfillment of performance criteria, and therefore he had no vested

or statutory right to claim continuation beyond the tenure for which

he was initially appointed. It is further submitted that the non-

renewal or non-extension of a fixed-term contractual appointment

upon expiry of its term does not amount to punitive termination

and does not attract the principles of natural justice, particularly

when the action is not stigmatic in nature.

12. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge

has committed a manifest error in recording a finding that the

Board of Governors, in its 52nd Meeting, had resolved to confirm

the respondent's appointment for a period of five years. According

to the appellants, such a finding is contrary to the record. It is

contended that the proceedings of the said meeting would clearly

reveal that the Board merely noted that the respondent had

completed one year of service satisfactorily, which was in

consonance with the applicable Statutes governing the

appointment. No decision or resolution was passed by the Board

granting the respondent a fixed tenure of five years. It is therefore

argued that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is

based on an erroneous interpretation of the record and has

resulted in a fundamental factual error which goes to the root of

the impugned judgment.

13. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law

in setting aside the communication dated 23.02.2023, even

though the respondent had not challenged the foundational

decision of the Board of Governors taken in its 56th Meeting held

on 21.02.2023. According to learned counsel, it is a settled

principle of administrative law that when the parent or

foundational decision forming the basis of a consequential order is

not under challenge, the consequential order cannot

independently be quashed. In the present case, the respondent

deliberately omitted to challenge the decision of the Board of

Governors and confined his challenge only to the consequential

communication. In such circumstances, it is contended that the

learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the

consequential order without examining or setting aside the

foundational decision of the competent statutory authority.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that under the

provisions of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007,

particularly Sections 11, 13 and 18, the Board of Governors is the

supreme statutory body entrusted with the administration, control

and superintendence of the Institute. The decision of the Board

not to extend the contractual tenure of the respondent was taken

after due deliberation and upon consideration of relevant material,

including objections raised by the Comptroller and Auditor

General (CAG) with regard to the respondent's eligibility. It is

therefore contended that the decision of the Board of Governors,

being that of an expert statutory body, could not have been

substituted by the opinion of the Court in exercise of judicial

review unless it was shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation

of statutory provisions, none of which were established by the

respondent in the writ proceedings.

15. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the writ petition itself had

become infructuous inasmuch as the respondent had already

accepted and joined another appointment as Finance Officer in a

different Central University. It is contended that once the

respondent voluntarily accepted and joined another statutory post,

he ceased to have any subsisting or enforceable right to seek

continuation in the appellant Institute. In such circumstances, the

writ petition no longer involved any live controversy and ought to

have been dismissed as infructuous. However, the learned Single

Judge, despite noticing the said fact, proceeded to set aside the

administrative order without granting any effective consequential

relief, which according to the appellants has resulted in an

anomalous and legally unsustainable outcome warranting

interference by this in the present writ appeal.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/writ petitioner supports the impugned judgment dated

19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that

the same has been passed after due consideration of the

pleadings, documents on record and the statutory scheme

governing the field. It is contended that the learned Single Judge

has rightly held that the action of the appellants in issuing the

order dated 23.02.2023, whereby the services of the respondent

were not continued on the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur, was

arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

According to learned counsel, the respondent was appointed after

a regular selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated

24.01.2020 and had joined the post on 24.02.2021. His

appointment was governed by the National Institutes of

Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes framed thereunder and the

Recruitment Rules, 2019.

17. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent had

discharged his duties diligently and his performance was duly

reviewed in the 52nd Meeting of the Board of Governors held on

25.02.2022. In the said meeting, the Board of Governors, after

considering the performance review, found the respondent's

performance to be satisfactory and approved his appointment for

a period of five years from the date of joining. The said decision

was also communicated to the respondent vide letter dated

10.03.2022. It is therefore contended that once the competent

authority had already considered the performance of the

respondent and approved his tenure, the respondents could not

subsequently reopen the matter and discontinue his appointment

without following the due procedure prescribed under the

governing statutes and rules.

18. It is further submitted that the impugned decision dated

21.02.2023 of the Board of Governors, pursuant to which the

consequential order dated 23.02.2023 was issued, was taken

without informing the respondent and without affording him any

opportunity to place his case before the competent authority.

Learned counsel submits that the respondent was neither issued

any show-cause notice nor called upon to explain any alleged

deficiency in his performance. Such action, which results in

serious adverse civil consequences to the respondent, could not

have been taken behind his back and in complete disregard of the

audi alteram partem rule. The learned Single Judge has therefore

rightly held that the impugned order suffers from procedural

infirmity and violation of the principles of natural justice.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the action

of the appellants was also contrary to the statutory scheme under

the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and the Statutes

framed thereunder. It is contended that the respondents adopted

a discriminatory approach in the respondent's case, whereas

similarly placed Registrars in other National Institutes of

Technology have been appointed and allowed to continue for the

prescribed tenure in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The

abrupt discontinuation of the respondent's appointment, without

any adverse material or finding regarding his performance, clearly

demonstrates arbitrariness in the decision-making process.

20. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has

taken a balanced view of the matter while granting relief to the

respondent. Though the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 was

set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice,

the learned Single Judge has refrained from directing

reinstatement of the respondent in view of the admitted fact that

the respondent has subsequently joined the post of Finance

Officer in the Central University of Kashmir. It is therefore

contended that the impugned judgment neither suffers from any

legal infirmity nor warrants interference in the present writ appeal

and the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed.

21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and the

pleadings and documents placed on record as also statutory

framework governing the appointment and tenure of the Registrar

of the National Institute of Technology, particularly the provisions

of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes

framed thereunder and the Recruitment Rules, 2019, which

regulate selection, appointment and continuation of the said post.

22. After appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the respective parties, and upon a detailed

consideration of the pleadings, documents and the statutory

framework governing the field, the learned Single Judge

proceeded to examine the legality and validity of the impugned

order dated 23.02.2023 whereby the services of the writ petitioner

on the post of Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur

were decided not to be continued beyond the stipulated period.

The learned Single Judge, while evaluating the rival contentions,

took into account the provisions of the National Institutes of

Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes framed thereunder and the

Recruitment Rules, 2019 governing the appointment and tenure of

the Registrar.

23. The learned Single Judge further examined the factual matrix

emerging from the record, including the circumstances relating to

the appointment of the writ petitioner pursuant to the

advertisement dated 24.01.2020, the subsequent review of his

performance in the 52nd Meeting of the Board of Governors, and

the decision communicated to him regarding satisfactory

completion of his service. Upon such consideration, the learned

Single Judge addressed the question as to whether the decision

taken by the competent authority leading to the issuance of the

impugned order dated 23.02.2023 was in conformity with the

governing statutory provisions and the settled principles of

administrative law.

24. After analyzing the rival submissions and the materials placed on

record, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the

decision-making process culminating in the impugned order

suffered from procedural infirmities, particularly with regard to

adherence to the principles of natural justice. At the same time,

the learned Single Judge also took note of the subsequent

development that the writ petitioner had, during the pendency of

the proceedings, joined another post as Finance Officer in the

Central University of Kashmir, and therefore considered it

appropriate not to issue any direction for reinstatement, while

nevertheless addressing the legality of the impugned

administrative action.

25. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned Single Judge

proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, the operative portion

whereof reads as under:-

"11. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by respondent No.2, whereby his appointment to the post of Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur was decided not to be continued beyond the stipulated period.

12. The principal grounds of challenge are arbitrariness, violation of the provisions of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes and Recruitment Rules, 2019, as well as breach of the principles of natural

justice on account of absence of notice and opportunity of hearing. From the record, it is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to an advertisement dated 24.01.2020 after undergoing a regular selection process conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, and that his appointment was governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2019. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner joined the post on 24.02.2021 and discharged his duties as Registrar thereafter. It further emerges from the material on record that the petitioner's performance was reviewed in the 52 nd Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 25.02.2022. In the said meeting, after due consideration, the Board found the performance of the petitioner to be satisfactory and resolved to confirm his appointment for a period of five years from the date of joining. This decision was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.03.2022. However, despite such approval, no formal order confirming the petitioner's tenure for five years was issued, and subsequently certain administrative and financial powers vested in the petitioner were curtailed without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

13. The impugned order dated 23.02.2023 has been issued pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting dated 21.02.2023 of the Board of Governors, whereby it was decided not to

extend the petitioner's appointment beyond its then existing term. The petitioner was admittedly not informed of the said meeting nor granted any opportunity to place his case before the Board. In the facts of the present case, where the petitioner's performance had already been found satisfactory by the competent authority and his tenure approved earlier, this Court finds substance in the contention that a decision adversely affecting his continuation could not have been taken without adherence to the principles of natural justice.

14. At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner's appointment was contractual in nature, governed by the terms of the appointment letter, the Statutes and the Recruitment Rules, which contemplate periodic review and extension subject to the decision of the competent authority. The respondents have contended that the decision not to extend the petitioner's appointment was taken by the Board of Governors in exercise of its statutory powers and does not amount to termination or imposition of any stigma. The rival submissions thus disclose that the controversy lies in a narrow compass, namely the legality of the decision-making process culminating in the impugned order dated 23.02.2023, rather than the merits of the petitioner's performance. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from

procedural infirmity, inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision having adverse civil consequences, particularly in the backdrop of the earlier approval of his tenure.

15. During the pendency of the present writ petition, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has already been appointed to the post of Finance Officer in the Central University of Kashmir, Government of India, and is presently working on the said post. This subsequent development has been brought to the notice of the Court by the respondents themselves.

16. In view of the aforesaid subsequent appointment, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would now be served by issuing a mandamus for reinstatement or continuation of the petitioner on the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur. At the same time, the legality of the impugned order deserves to be addressed so that the petitioner is not left remediless and the issue is settled in accordance with law.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions and observations that the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) is set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural irregularity. However, in view of the admitted subsequent development that the petitioner has already been appointed and is working as

Finance Officer in the Central University of Kashmir, Government of India, no direction for reinstatement or continuation on the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur is issued. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to choose where he desires to render his service. If the petitioner opts to continue on his present post, this judgment shall not be construed as compelling him to rejoin NIT Raipur. Conversely, if the petitioner seeks to avail any consequential benefit in accordance with law, the same shall be considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and statutory provisions.

18. The writ petition is thus disposed of in the above terms."

26. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents

placed on record and the statutory framework governing the field,

this Court finds that the principal issue arising for consideration in

the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was

justified in interfering with the decision of the competent authority

whereby the services of the writ petitioner on the post of Registrar,

National Institute of Technology, Raipur were not continued

beyond the stipulated period. The learned Single Judge set aside

the order dated 23.02.2023 primarily on the ground that the

decision adversely affecting the writ petitioner had been taken

without affording him an opportunity of hearing and therefore

suffered from violation of the principles of natural justice.

27. From the material available on record, it is evident that the

appointment of the writ petitioner was contractual in nature and

governed by the terms of the appointment order read with the

provisions of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, the

Statutes framed thereunder and the Recruitment Rules, 2019.

The said framework contemplates that the post of Registrar may

be filled on deputation or contract basis for a specified tenure

subject to the decision of the competent authority. The

continuation or extension of such contractual engagement is

therefore dependent upon the decision of the competent statutory

body of the Institute and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

The learned Single Judge appears to have proceeded on the

premise that the decision of the Board of Governors not to

continue the writ petitioner beyond the stipulated term had civil

consequences and therefore could not have been taken without

affording him an opportunity of hearing. However, upon a closer

scrutiny of the nature of the action impugned in the writ petition, it

becomes evident that the decision in question did not amount to a

punitive termination but merely related to the non-extension of a

contractual engagement. It is well settled that where an

appointment is contractual and for a fixed tenure, the non-renewal

or non-extension of such engagement upon expiry of the

stipulated period does not amount to termination attracting the

principles of natural justice unless the action is stigmatic or

founded upon allegations of misconduct.

28. In the present case, the decision dated 21.02.2023 taken by the

Board of Governors, pursuant to which the consequential

communication dated 23.02.2023 was issued, does not record

any adverse finding or stigma against the writ petitioner. The said

decision merely reflects the administrative determination of the

competent statutory body regarding the continuation of the

contractual arrangement. The Board of Governors, under the

scheme of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, is the

supreme governing authority entrusted with the administration and

control of the Institute. In matters relating to appointment and

continuation of senior administrative posts, the decision taken by

such an expert statutory body is ordinarily not amenable to

interference in exercise of judicial review unless it is shown to be

arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions.

29. In the case at hand, the writ petitioner did not lay any foundation

to demonstrate that the decision of the Board of Governors was

actuated by mala fides or was otherwise arbitrary or violative of

any statutory provision. The learned Single Judge, in our

considered opinion, erred in interfering with the administrative

decision of the competent authority without adequately

appreciating the contractual nature of the appointment and the

limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

30. Another aspect which merits consideration is that the order dated

23.02.2023 was issued in consequence of the decision taken by

the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 21.02.2023. The

writ petitioner had confined his challenge primarily to the

consequential communication dated 23.02.2023 without

specifically assailing the foundational decision of the Board of

Governors. In the absence of a challenge to the parent decision of

the competent statutory authority, the consequential order could

not have been independently set aside.

31. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court during the

course of hearing that certain subsequent developments have

taken place after the passing of the impugned judgment by the

learned Single Judge on 19.12.2025. It is not in dispute that the

writ petitioner has tendered his resignation from his services of on

30.01.2026 while working at Jammu and Kashmir. Once the writ

petitioner voluntarily resigned from service following the order

passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.12.2025, the question

of directing his reinstatement or continuation as Registrar at

National Institute of Technology, Raipur ceases to survive for

consideration. Any such direction at this stage would be purely

academic and incapable of effective implementation. It has further

been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that he had

submitted a representation before the competent authority of the

appellant Institute raising certain claims relating to his tenure and

service conditions. In our considered view, the mere existence of

such a representation cannot furnish a ground to sustain

interference with administrative decision of competent authority.

32. It has also been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that if

his appointment were treated as one for a fixed tenure of five

years from the date of joining, the tenure would have otherwise

ended on 26.02.2026. The appellants, however, dispute this

contention and maintain that the writ petitioner had no vested or

statutory right to claim continuation for the said period. Having

regard to the contractual nature of the appointment and the

subsequent resignation tendered by the writ petitioner, we are of

the considered view that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to

adjudicate this controversy in the present proceedings.

33. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified

in setting aside the order dated 23.02.2023. The decision of the

Board of Governors not to extend the contractual tenure of the

writ petitioner cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity

warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

34. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated

19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS

No.1705/2023 is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the present writ

appeal is allowed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any,

shall also stand disposed of.

                      Sd/-                                      Sd/-
            (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                        (Ramesh Sinha)
                    Judge                                    Chief Justice
Anu