ORDER : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2, namely the Director, National Institute of Technology (NIT), Raipur, whereby it has been decided not to continue the petitioner on the post of Registrar of the Institute. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable manner, without any authority of law, and is therefore illegal, void and liable to be set aside. The petitioner contends that the said action is contrary to the provisions of the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 and the statutory rules governing the appointment and continuation of the Registrar, as well as the settled principles of law applicable to the field. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been issued pursuant to a meeting dated 21.02.2023 of the In-Charge Director of the Institute, in which the petitioner was neither called nor afforded any opportunity of hearing. The decision having been taken in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order is ex facie bad in law. Hence, this petition has been filed seeking indulgence of this Court for following relief : - “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 23-02-2023 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Registrar, NIT, Raipur (C.G) 10.3 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur issued an advertisement dated 24.01.2020 inviting applications for one vacant post of Registrar. Owing to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the recruitment process was delayed; however, a duly constituted Selection/Recruitment Committee was formed, comprising the Director, NIT Raipur, one Professor from NIT Jamshedpur, the Registrar of NIT Jalandhar, one retired Chief Engineer from Raipur, with respondent No.2 acting as the Chairman of the Committee. The advertisement specifically provided that the recruitment would be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2019, which were annexed thereto. The advertisement specifically provided that the recruitment would be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2019, which were annexed thereto. Pursuant to the said selection process, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur vide order dated 22.02.2021, and he joined his duties on 24.02.2021. The appointment was made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 2019, which stipulate that the post of Registrar is to be filled for a fixed tenure of five years, subject to the prescribed conditions. The petitioner discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and dedication, and his performance was placed for review before the 52 nd Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 25.02.2022. The petitioner, being the presenting officer, participated in the meeting only to the extent permissible and thereafter recused himself when his performance was taken up for consideration. In the said meeting, the agenda included noting of the petitioner’s performance review and confirmation of his appointment for a period of five years with effect from the date of joining. The Board of Governors, after due consideration, found the petitioner’s performance to be satisfactory and ratified the approval accorded by the Chairman, thereby resolving to confirm his appointment accordingly. Although the aforesaid decision of the Board of Governors was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.03.2022, no formal order confirming or extending the petitioner’s appointment for a fixed tenure of five years was issued by respondent No.2, despite the clear mandate under 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. Aggrieved by the non-issuance of a formal appointment order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.03.2022 to respondent No.2. The petitioner submits that in various National Institutes of Technology across the country, including NIT Srinagar and NIT Surat, Registrars have been appointed for a fixed tenure of five years in accordance with the statutory provisions, demonstrating that a different and discriminatory yardstick has been adopted in the petitioner’s case. During the course of the petitioner’s tenure, certain complaints were made by some individuals within NIT Raipur regarding his appointment; however, the same were duly examined and replied to by the Chairperson of the Recruitment Committee as well as by respondent No.2, and it was never found that the petitioner’s appointment was irregular or illegal. During the course of the petitioner’s tenure, certain complaints were made by some individuals within NIT Raipur regarding his appointment; however, the same were duly examined and replied to by the Chairperson of the Recruitment Committee as well as by respondent No.2, and it was never found that the petitioner’s appointment was irregular or illegal. When the petitioner raised the issue of discrepancy in the nature and tenure of his appointment before respondent Nos.1 and 2, the matter was placed as Agenda Item No.55.6 in the 55 th Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 17.10.2022, but the issue was deferred to a subsequent meeting, indicating an adverse and prejudicial approach on the part of the respondent authorities. Subsequently, certain powers vested in the petitioner were curtailed and transferred to other officials vide letter dated 11.08.2022, and later, vide order dated 06.01.2023, the financial powers of the petitioner were withdrawn without affording him any opportunity of hearing, in clear 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. The services of the petitioner are governed by the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes framed thereunder in the year 2009, and the Recruitment Rules, 2019, all of which unequivocally provide for appointment of the Registrar for a fixed tenure of five years and delineate his duties, powers and status within the Institute. Despite this clear statutory framework, the petitioner was subjected to arbitrary and prejudicial treatment. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2023 withdrawing his financial powers, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. WPS/897/2023, in which pleadings have already been completed. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent authorities, acting with a predetermined intent, have ultimately removed the petitioner from service without following the procedure established by law, without a duly appointed Director, and in a manner that is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, giving rise to the present cause of action. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur has been decided not to be continued beyond 23.02.2023, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur has been decided not to be continued beyond 23.02.2023, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The order has been passed in a mechanical and whimsical manner, without adherence to the statutory framework governing the appointment and tenure of the Registrar under the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007, the Statutes framed thereunder and the Recruitment Rules, 2019, and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No show- cause notice, explanation, or prior intimation was ever issued to the petitioner before taking the drastic decision of discontinuing his appointment. The petitioner was neither informed about the convening of any meeting of the Board of Governors nor given an opportunity to place his case before the said body. Such action is in gross violation of the audi alteram partem rule and renders the impugned order void ab initio. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent authorities is also contrary to the First Statute of the National Institutes of Technology, which prescribes the manner in which meetings of the Board of Governors are to be conducted and decisions affecting statutory posts are to be taken. The so-called decision has been taken in a “Special BOG Meeting” dated 21.02.2023 without following the mandatory statutory procedure, and without constitution of any performance review committee as required under the Statutes and the Recruitment Rules, 2019. Thus, the decision-making process itself is illegal and vitiated. It is contended that the respondents have adopted a wholly discriminatory approach in the petitioner’s case, applying a different yardstick to him as compared to similarly situated Registrars in other National Institutes of Technology, who have been appointed for a fixed tenure of five years in accordance with law. Such differential treatment, without any reasonable classification or justification, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Such differential treatment, without any reasonable classification or justification, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s performance had already been duly reviewed in the 52 nd Meeting of the Board of Governors held on 25.02.2022, wherein his performance was found satisfactory and his appointment for a period of five years was approved and ratified. Once the competent authority, after due consideration, has reviewed and found the performance of the petitioner satisfactory, the same issue could not have been reopened or reviewed again, particularly when there is no provision under the Statutes or Rules permitting a second or retrospective review in the absence of any adverse material. It is also submitted that the entire action of the respondents is actuated by mala fides. The petitioner was functioning independently and strictly in accordance with law, and was not acting at the dictates of certain authorities. For this reason, the respondents ganged up against the petitioner with a predetermined intent to remove him from office, which is evident from the manner in which his powers were curtailed, adverse actions were taken without notice, and ultimately his appointment was discontinued without following due process. Learned counsel emphasizes that the advertisement dated 24.01.2020 itself categorically provided that the appointment to the post of Registrar would be governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2019, which stipulate that the appointment shall be for a tenure of five years, subject to review by a committee constituted by the Board of Governors. The impugned order, which seeks to prematurely discontinue the petitioner’s appointment, is therefore directly contrary to the terms of the advertisement, the Recruitment Rules, and the statutory scheme. It is further submitted that, at the relevant point of time, there was no duly appointed Chairperson of the Board of Governors as required under Section 11 of the NIT Act, 2007. The post of Chairperson, to be nominated by the Visitor (the Hon’ble President of India), was vacant, and the meeting was allegedly chaired by an In-charge Director, who was merely a senior faculty member and not appointed as Director in accordance with the Statute. In such circumstances, the so-called 56 th Meeting of the Board of Governors lacked the legal competence and authority to take any decision affecting the tenure of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the so-called 56 th Meeting of the Board of Governors lacked the legal competence and authority to take any decision affecting the tenure of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that at no point of time was any show-cause notice issued to the petitioner alleging unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. In the absence of any adverse entry, complaint or finding regarding performance, the drastic action of discontinuing the petitioner’s appointment is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law. It is also pointed out that on 23.02.2023, the respondents did not even file a reply in the matter, and the counsel appeared at around 4:00 PM without disclosing that any Special Meeting of the Board of Governors had been convened or that any such decision was proposed to be taken. This conduct further demonstrates the lack of transparency and fairness in the decision-making process. Learned counsel submits that in the first performance review, the petitioner was duly informed, called and given an opportunity to participate to the extent permissible. However, in the present instance, with a clear motive to remove him, the petitioner was deliberately kept in the dark and was not informed about the conduct of any meeting of the Board of Governors, thereby depriving him of a fair opportunity. It is further submitted that no file or proposal was ever routed through the petitioner, who, as Registrar, is also the Secretary of the Board of Governors and is statutorily required to place agendas and facilitate meetings. The complete bypassing of the Registrar in convening and conducting the alleged meeting itself vitiates the entire process. 5. Learned counsel also submits that despite the petitioner’s representation dated 11.03.2022 seeking issuance of a formal order confirming his five-year tenure pursuant to the satisfactory performance review, the respondents maintained complete silence and never communicated any decision thereon, which itself reflects arbitrariness and unfair treatment. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar v. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghudauri & Ors. ( 2024 INSC 309 ) and Dr. Sunita Chandra v. Union of India , wherein it has been held that statutory appointments cannot be curtailed or terminated without following the prescribed procedure, adherence to principles of natural justice, and strict compliance with the governing statutes and rules. ( 2024 INSC 309 ) and Dr. Sunita Chandra v. Union of India , wherein it has been held that statutory appointments cannot be curtailed or terminated without following the prescribed procedure, adherence to principles of natural justice, and strict compliance with the governing statutes and rules. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that respondent No. 1 is the statutory authority which has enacted and administers the National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 along with its subsequent amendments. The functioning, administration and governance of all National Institutes of Technology are strictly regulated by the provisions of the said Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances framed thereunder. As per Section 8 of the Act, all teaching and institutional activities of each Institute are required to be conducted by or in the name of the Institute in accordance with the Statutes and Ordinances made in that behalf, and no action can be said to be dehors the statutory framework. It is submitted that under Section 13 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Board of Governors of every Institute is vested with the responsibility of general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Institute and is empowered to exercise all powers of the Institute which are not otherwise provided for under the Act. The Board of Governors is thus the highest decision-making authority at the Institute level, and its decisions, when taken in accordance with the Act and Statutes, are binding and legally valid. Learned counsel further submits that as per Section 17 of the Act, the Director and Deputy Director of an Institute are appointed by the Visitor on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. The Director, being the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute, is responsible for the proper administration of the Institute, imparting of instruction and maintenance of discipline therein. The Registrar, in turn, functions under the overall administrative supervision of the Director in accordance with the statutory scheme. The Director, being the principal academic and executive officer of the Institute, is responsible for the proper administration of the Institute, imparting of instruction and maintenance of discipline therein. The Registrar, in turn, functions under the overall administrative supervision of the Director in accordance with the statutory scheme. It is further submitted that Section 18 of the Act clearly provides that the Registrar of every Institute shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Statutes and shall be the custodian of records, the common seal, the funds of the Institute and such other property as the Board may commit to his charge. The Registrar is required to act as the Secretary of the Board of Governors, the Senate and such other committees as may be prescribed, and is responsible to the Director for the proper discharge of duties assigned under the Act, the Statutes or by the Director. Thus, the appointment, tenure and continuation of the Registrar are entirely governed by statutory provisions and the decisions of the competent authorities under the Act. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Raipur strictly on a short-term contractual basis. As per the express terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 24.01.2020 and the applicable NITSER Statutes, the appointment was initially for a period of one year, extendable by not more than one year at a time, subject to a maximum tenure of five years. Each extension was expressly made conditional upon a favourable recommendation of a duly constituted Performance Review Committee and approval by the Board of Governors. In accordance with these provisions, respondent No. 2 issued the appointment letter dated 22.02.2021 on a short-term contractual basis. It is further submitted that pursuant to the appointment letter dated 22.02.2021, a formal agreement was executed between the petitioner and NIT Raipur clearly stipulating that the appointment was on a short-term contractual basis, initially for one year, with extensions to be granted only upon satisfactory performance as assessed by the Review Committee. The petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions without protest, unconditionally joined the post and submitted his joining report, thereby binding himself to the contractual and statutory conditions governing his appointment. The petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions without protest, unconditionally joined the post and submitted his joining report, thereby binding himself to the contractual and statutory conditions governing his appointment. Learned counsel submits that in the 56 th Meeting of the Board of Governors of NIT Raipur, the matter relating to extension of the petitioner’s appointment was duly considered. Based on the findings and recommendations of the Performance Review Committee and after detailed deliberations, the Board of Governors, in exercise of its statutory powers under the Act, took a conscious decision not to further extend the appointment of Dr. Arif Khan to the post of Registrar beyond 23.02.2023. The said decision was taken strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the governing statutory framework. It is submitted that the petitioner’s services were not terminated, but his contractual appointment was simply not extended beyond its stipulated term. Non-extension of a fixed- term contractual appointment, based on performance review and decision of the competent authority, does not amount to punitive action or removal from service and does not attract the principles applicable to termination of regular service. The decision was taken by the competent authority, namely the Board of Governors, in accordance with the NITSER Act, 2007 and the applicable Statutes. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that no legal, statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed. The petitioner has no vested or indefeasible right to claim extension of a contractual appointment, which is subject to periodic review and approval. In the absence of violation of any statutory provision or demonstrated procedural irregularity, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is therefore submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as it does not disclose any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting judicial review. The petition is devoid of merit, seeks to interfere with a valid administrative decision taken in accordance with law, and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Respondent No. 1 accordingly prays that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that a bare perusal of the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition makes it abundantly clear that the challenge is directed only against the consequential order dated 23.02.2023, whereby the contractual tenure of the petitioner was not extended beyond that date. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that a bare perusal of the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition makes it abundantly clear that the challenge is directed only against the consequential order dated 23.02.2023, whereby the contractual tenure of the petitioner was not extended beyond that date. The said order was issued purely in compliance of the decision taken by the Board of Governors in its meeting dated 21.02.2023. The foundational and parent decision of the Board of Governors dated 21.02.2023, which forms the very basis of the impugned consequential order, has admittedly not been challenged by the petitioner. In the absence of any challenge to the parent decision of the competent authority, the present writ petition, which seeks to assail only the consequential order, is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that although the petitioner has made vague and sweeping allegations of prejudice and mala fides in paragraphs 8.1 and 9.6 of the writ petition, no individual has been impleaded by name against whom such allegations are made. It is a settled principle of law that allegations of mala fides or bias cannot be sustained on bald assertions without impleading the concerned persons and laying a proper factual foundation. In the absence of specific pleadings and necessary parties, such allegations deserve outright rejection, rendering the writ petition untenable. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Registrar, NIT Raipur, on purely contractual basis vide appointment order dated 22.02.2021, pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.01.2020, clearly stipulating that the appointment shall be initially for one year, extendable by not more than one year at a time, subject to satisfactory performance review and recommendation of the Review Committee constituted by the Board of Governors, for a maximum period of five years. The appointment order expressly provided that the offer was subject to acceptance of all terms and conditions, which the petitioner unconditionally accepted, and joined the post on 24.02.2021 without any demur or protest. It is submitted that upon completion of one year, the petitioner’s performance was reviewed, and though the Board of Governors, in its meeting dated 25.02.2022, ratified the performance review report as satisfactory, no decision was taken to grant a five-year tenure. It is submitted that upon completion of one year, the petitioner’s performance was reviewed, and though the Board of Governors, in its meeting dated 25.02.2022, ratified the performance review report as satisfactory, no decision was taken to grant a five-year tenure. This position was further clarified by the Director’s letter dated 10.03.2022, which explicitly recorded satisfactory completion of only one year of service in terms of Statute 21(3). The petitioner himself, by representations dated 11.03.2022 and 27.06.2022, sought correction in the appointment order, which clearly demonstrates that even the petitioner understood that his appointment was not for a fixed five-year term. The representation was placed before the Board of Governors in its meeting dated 17.10.2022, where it was decided to take up the agenda in the subsequent meeting. Learned counsel submits that the Board of Governors, in its duly constituted meeting dated 21.02.2023, after following the prescribed procedure, consciously decided not to extend the contractual service of the petitioner beyond 23.02.2023, and accordingly, the consequential order dated 23.02.2023 was issued. The decision-making process was lawful, transparent, and in strict conformity with the NIT Act, 2007 and the Statutes framed thereunder. The Board of Governors meeting dated 21.02.2023 was properly constituted and comprised of senior officials, including the Director, Joint Secretaries from the Ministry of Education (Administration and Finance), nominees of the State Government, and senior academic members, thereby completely negating any allegation of arbitrariness or mala fides. 9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as he has deliberately filed the unamended Statute No. 21 along with the writ petition, whereas Statute No. 21 stood amended by Gazette Notification dated 21.07.2017, whereby sub-clause 21(3) was inserted. The petitioner has based his entire claim on the unamended statute placed at page 82 of the writ petition, with a clear intent to mislead this Court and to gain undue advantage. Such suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner from any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , reported in 2010 (2) SCC 144 . Such suppression of material facts disentitles the petitioner from any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , reported in 2010 (2) SCC 144 . Learned counsel further submits that the order declining extension of the petitioner’s contractual service is an order simpliciter, does not cast any stigma, and does not infringe any vested right of the petitioner. The decision has been taken strictly in accordance with the statutory framework governing contractual appointments in NITs. In cases of non-extension of fixed-term contractual appointments, no show-cause notice or prior hearing is required, and the principles of natural justice are not attracted. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having accepted the contractual appointment with open eyes and having enjoyed all benefits flowing therefrom for more than two years, cannot now approbate and reprobate by challenging the very terms and conditions which he had earlier accepted unconditionally. Such conduct is impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anupal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173 and in the matter of Ranjan Kumar and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187 . Learned counsel also submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the additional reason that the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Board of Governors dated 21.02.2023, nor has he laid any pleadings challenging the constitution of the Review Committee or the decision-making process. Oral arguments in the absence of pleadings are impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Prakash Singh and Another , reported in AIR 2007 SC 1363 , in the matter of State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Narmada Estates Private Limited and Others , reported in (2010) 12 SCC 419 , and in the matter of Avinash Gaikwad and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , reported in (2010) 11 SCC 433 . It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has already been appointed to the post of Finance Officer in the Central University of Kashmir, Government of India, and is presently discharging his duties there since 13.12.2024. In view of this subsequent development, the writ petition has lost its substratum and has become infructuous, as the petitioner is already holding a substantive senior administrative post under the Central Government. The writ petition is required to be decided on the facts prevailing as on today, and as on date, no enforceable or surviving cause of action remains. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit, not maintainable in law, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold, with costs. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the statutory framework governing the field, with due care and circumspection. 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. 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. 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. No order as to costs.