Shiv Kumar Choudhary v. Bihar Agriculture University & Ors.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Narjot Yeshu, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyaya, Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha and Mr. Parkash Mahto, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

4. 28-06-2012 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by two Junior Scientist – cum – Assistant Professors employed by the Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, District Bhagalpur against the Office Memorandum dated 24th December 2011 informing the petitioners that in absence of 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.1676 of 2012 (4) dt.28-06-2012 intimation to the University about their passing the NET (National Eligibility Test) their service would stand terminated on 28th December 2011 and the order of termination of service made by the University on 5th January 2012. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2006 issued by the then Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur, the petitioners were selected and appointed as Assistant Professor – cum – Junior Scientist( Agriculture Statistics) on condition that the petitioners would clear NET within three years from the date of appointment. The petitioners Shiv Kumar Choudhary and Rajiv Kumar have executed bond in the same terms. Since their appointment, the Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur was divided into several Universities one of them, the Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur. The petitioners’ services were transferred to the Bihar Agriculture University, Sabour, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as “the University”). On expiry of the said period, the University under its Notification dated 16th November 2009 extended the said period of three years to that of five years. Since the petitioners failed to pass the NET within specified period, their services have been terminated in terms of the conditions of the agreement bond. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh has appeared for the petitioners. He has relied upon the advertisement No. 1 of 2006. He has submitted that the advertisement clearly specified that candidate must have passed NET examination or shall have two years’ teaching experience. The petitioners now have five years’ teaching experience. Their services could not have been terminated on the premise that they had not passed the NET. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.1676 of 2012 (4) dt.28-06-2012 He has next relied upon a resolution passed by the Veterinary Council of India. He has submitted that the Veterinary Council of India has decided that for appointment on teaching post in Agriculture University, a candidate shall not need to have the qualification of passing the NET. He has next submitted that in any view of the matter the University having selected and appointed the petitioners, although, they do not passes the NET qualification, the University cannot be permitted to terminate the service of the petitioners on the specious ground that the petitioners were bound to clear the NET. In support of his submissions Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Sarup vs. State of Haryana and Others (AIR 1978 SC 1536). Mr. Singh has also submitted that the University Grants Commission Act does not apply on the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhyaya has appeared for the University. He has relied upon the University Grants Commission Regulations, 1994 and the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh and Others ( AIR 1995 SC 336). Pursuant to the report of the Mehrotra Commission, the University Grants Commission Act and Regulations were modified to provide for a test at the national level to secure best of the people as teachers. We do not agree with Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh. The Advertisement No. 1 of 2006 specifically provided for eligibility for appointment of the Assistant Professor – cum – Junior Scientist. It further provided “ besides fulfilling the above qualifications, candidates should have cleared the National 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.1676 of 2012 (4) dt.28-06-2012 Eligibility Test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC”. “NET shall be relaxable for a candidate having two years teaching or Research or Extension Education experience in a University/ National Institute of repute” The corrigendum the advertisement read, “Candidates having Master’s Degree the relevant subject(s) who have not qualified the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC/ASRB/CSIR will have to pass the NET examination in the available opportunities after appointment before completion of three years, failing which his/her services shall be terminated without notice. This condition will not be applicable to the candidates having Ph.D. Degree in the relevant subject(s) (This is subject to approval of competent authority).” Thus the advertisement was very specific in respect of the requirement of passing the NET. The order of appointment and the agreement bond specified that the petitioners had to clear the NET within three years from the date of appointment. The said date was later on extended to five years under University Notification dated 16th November 2009 notified in the Official Gazette of the Bihar Government on 19th April 2012. As to the decision of the Veterinary Council of India we have not examined enforceability of the said decision. In the said decision of the Veterinary Council of India it was decided that “NET may not be made a pre- requisite for recruitment for teaching faculty in case NET is considered to be an Impediment to the recruitment process.” At first, we have noticed, the said 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.1676 of 2012 (4) dt.28-06-2012 Resolution decided on 25th November 2008 cannot have a retrospective effect. Second we have our own doubt about the legal enforceability of the said communication. Third, the said communication does not make it imperative to do away with the NET qualification nor does it direct any University to amend its Regulation or statutes to be in consonance with the said communication. In our opinion the eligibility provided University communication dated 25th November 2008. statutes prevail aforesaid In any view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the writ petition. Petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Prakash/- (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)