Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha v. Lalit Narayan Mithila University

Prayer for payment of salary etc. was also made, if the first part of the relief would accrue to him. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner has been the University and the State authorities have unnecessarily being unreasonable with him by not considering his case for regularization, despite his long period of service in the said College and despite efforts and recommendations having been made in his favour from time Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 to time, which never crystallized into anything substantive. Appointment of the petitioner for the first time was made on daily-wage, as would be evident from Annexure- 3, dated 03.08.1984. Thereafter, petitioner had approached the High Court for a suitable direction, when he was removed from the post of a Demonstrator. Annexure - 2 to the Writ Application shows so. Pursuant to the Order, contained in Annexure – 2, is yet another communication, confirming the said position, addressed to the Registrar of the said University. as would be evident from letter dated 03.08.1984 itself, which is at page 31. Since 1985, petitioner is supposed to have continued to render service in the adhoc capacity as a daily-wager. Various recommendations at the level of the College as well as of the University never begot him any permanency or salary. Therefore, the present Writ Application. The Court has been taken through the various annexures, which have been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was working against a so called sanctioned post of Lab Incharge and his name had been recommended by the University and the College authorities for consideration, but for one reason or the other no finality was achieved and petitioner remained in the lurch. He has also superannuated in the meanwhile, without Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 receiving any benefit of such engagement, appointment or continuance. The Court has meticulously gone through these records and the annexures. Appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be by following Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. It is evident that the Principal of the College had engaged the petitioner on daily-wage and has tried to smuggle him in by showing him to be eligible for permanency due to some vacancy having been available in the College in question as well as in view of the so called exigencies of service and need of a hand. Appointments under constituent Colleges under the State cannot be made in such a fashion. At a point of time, an adhoc appointment for a period of six months was permissible, but subject to permanent appointment being made against the said post, which was required to be sanctioned and approved by the State Government under section 35 of the Bihar University Act. But despite series of decisions, which have been rendered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, things would show that adhocism has continued in such appointments and on the plea of long association and work as well as on the plea of some kind of equity, indulgence is being sought from the Court to recognize the service of such petitioners by giving Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 direction to the State and the University to do so. The last of the documents also indicate that the petitioner had continued to work on a daily-wage capacity, despite there being no sanctioned post, as such, for a Demonstrator, a fact, though contested by the petitioner. The appointment letter of the petitioner itself shows that he was accommodated against the so called post, which fell vacant due to promotion of Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, who was working as a Demonstrator in the said College, a fact not found to be true. The stand of the University, however, University had no role to play in such appointment. The appointment was made by the Principal and he had tried to thrust the petitioner upon the University and the State by making all kinds of recommendations, despite no vacancy being available. The factum of availability of the post due to promotion of Ajay Kumar Roy was a smoke screen, because Ajay Kumar Roy got promotion of the time-bound kind and he never vacated the post of a Demonstrator. If that was so, then where the occasion was to show that there was a post vacant for Demonstrator, due to promotion of Ajay Kumar Roy. Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy only derived the benefits of time-bond-promotion but continued on the post of Demonstrator. Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 It is also the stand of the University that there is no record to show that the petitioner worked after the College became constituent, as the letter written by the Principal of the College to the Law Officer also reveals that as per records of the College, the petitioner never worked in the College after its conversion into a constituent unit of the concerned University.. The affairs of the Managing Committee or the decision by it or the decision of the Principal will not bind either the University or the State authorities in creating obligation by accommodating the petitioner by way of regularization on a post, which was never sanctioned or approved. The sum essence of the outcome of the prayer of the petitioner is that merely because he had worked in the College on an appointment made by the Principal, he had acquired a right in his favour for consideration of permanency. This Court, however, has certain serious reservations with regard to such plea and the Court would not be inclined to give any direction because there have been occasion even for the Apex Court to consider such issues with regard to the teaching staff of such Colleges or a University and this is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to say in the case of Veer Kunwar Singh University Adhoc Teachers Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 Association & ors. V. the Bihar State University (C.C.) Service Commission & ors., reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 262 (SC). The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 are reproduced herein below: “38. The practice to appoint ad hoc teachers must be deprecated. If a Government of a State or a University which is also a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, despite the repeated observations of the superior courts of the country, continue to do so, such a practice must be condemned. to declare any action

39. Directions can be issued to the State to act within four-corners of the statute contravention thereof to be a nullity; but it would not be permissible for this Court to go beyond the provisions of the statute and issue a direction that cases of all the considered appellants irrespective of the fact as to whether their appointment even as ad hoc teachers was against a sanctioned post or they have been working against the non-sanctioned posts or not. the High Court

40. We may at this stage notice that even before it had been conceded that many teachers have been appointed on an ad hoc basis on non- sanctioned posts. We fail to understand how this could be validly done. Those teachers who could compete with others having requisite qualification must be the University Service appointed by Commission provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act. Appellants may have the requisite qualification at the relevant point of time, but we must also consider that since then a large number of other persons must have acquired the requisite qualification for being appointed to the said posts, who cannot be deprived of their right to be considered for appointments along with other eligible candidates in terms of Article in accordance with Patna High Court CWJC No.8921 of 1995 dt.17-01-2013 14 of the Constitution of India.” The law and the fact being what they are and keeping in mind that the petitioner has already superannuated as stated, when he was not even permanently appointed, there cannot be an occasion for this Court to direct the University or the State to create a post and to accommodate a so called “superannuated” person to pay him the benefit of service at this stage, especially when his engagement and appointment had been made under certain controversial circumstances. Writ Application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated: 17.01.2013 Shashi Kant Mishra NAFR