Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3428 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Dr. Ravi Prakash 'Babloo' S/O Late Om Prakash Sinha R/O Sughar Chapra, P.S.- Manhi, Distt.- Saran 2. Dr. Udai Arvind S/O Late Udai Pratap Singh R/O Professor'S Colony, K.G.Road, Ara, P.S. Nawada, Distt.- Bhojpur 3. Dr. Achyuta Nand Singh S/O Sri Jai Krishna Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Rngram, P.S. Dhoraiya, Distt.- Banka 4. Rampher S/O Late Shambhu R/O Vill.- Daudpur, P.S. Daudpur, Distt.- Saran. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The Jai Prakash University, Chapra Through Its Registrar 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra 3. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra 4. The Selection Committee for Selection of Principals, Jai Prakash University, Chapra Through The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra 5. Dr.(Prof.) Lalan Dubey S/O Not Known To The Petitioners Road No. 8, Rajiv Nagar, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, Distt.- Patna 6. Dr. Baikunth Pandey, Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 7. Dr. Parmendra Ranjan Singh, Principal, Jagdam College, Chapra Through the Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 8. Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Principal, P.C. Vijnan Kendra, Chapra through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 9. Dr. K.P.Srivastwa, Principal, Ganga Singh College, Chapra through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 10. Dr. Vijay Kumar, Principal Jaglal Chaudhary College, Chapra through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 11. Dr. Ramshreshtha Rai, Principal, Ramjaipal College, Chapra through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 12. Dr. Brajkishore Tiwary, Principal, D.A.V. College, Siwan through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 13. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Principal, Raja Singh College, Siwan through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 14. Dr. Shyam Nandan Prasad, Principal, Kamla Rai College, Gopalganj through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 15. Dr. Madhuprabha Singh, Principal, Mahendra Mahila College, Gopalganj, through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 16. Dr. Krishna Kumar Baitha, Principal, Y.N.College, Dighwara through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 17. Dr. Shambhu Kumar, Principal, P.N.College, Parsa through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 18. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, Principal, H.R.College, Amnaur through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 19. Dr. Ramanand Rai, Principal, Nandlal Singh College, Jaitpur, Daudpur through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 20. Dr. Uday Shankar Pandey, Principal, R.B.G.R.College, Maharajganj through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 21. Dr. Pushparaj Gautam, Principal, V.P.S. College, Bhore through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 2 22. Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandit, Principal, Gopeshwar College, Hathua through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 23. Dr. Shiddhartha Shankar Singh, Principal, Narayan College, Goreyakothi through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 24. Dr. Kiran Kumari, Principal, Vidyabhawan Mahila College, Siwan through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra 25. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Principal, H.R.College, Mairwa through The Registrar, Jay Prakash University, Chapra .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s Mr. Amit Kr.Singh Mr. Chandan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shivendra Kishore ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 14 12-11-2013 Unsuccessful candidates in the selection for the posts of Principals in Jay Prakash University, Chapra (for short “ the University”) for which selection process was initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2009 have filed the present writ petition for a declaration that the selection/recommendation by the Selection Committee of the University for the appointment to the post of Principals is illegal, contrary to the mandatory/statutory provisions of the Act. They have thus sought for setting aside the appointments of the private respondents as Principals in various constituent colleges under the University.
Decision
In the writ petition, the petitioners have vaguely stated about the alleged large scale irregularities and bunglings in selection to the post of Principal. With the filing of counter Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 3 affidavit(s) by the private respondents and two affidavits in reply (contrary to each other) filed by the respondent University, the petitioners have sought to challenge the impugned selection primarily and foremostly on the ground that there was flagrant breach of statutory provisions in constituting the Selection Committee by the respondent University in terms of the amended provisions of Section 57(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (for short “ the Act”) The contention of the petitioners is that the experts required to be nominated on the Selection Committee were not made in terms of the provisions of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder. Counsels for the private respondents have raised a primary objection. It is urged that looking to the nature of dispute and the facts and circumstances appearing from record, the petitioners be relegated to the alternative and efficacious remedy of ventilating their grievance before the respondent Chancellor in terms of Section 9(4) of the Act. I have heard the parties on the said point. Mr. Chatterji learned counsel for the petitioners has cited an order of this Court passed in Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh versus State of Bihar {2011 (1) PLJR 1134] in order to submit that the issues/questions as raised in this application would not be Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 4 amenable to the jurisdiction of the respondent Chancellor. Per contra, the private respondents have submitted that reliance placed on Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh (supra) for the said contention is inappropriate if not wholly misplaced and the matter can effectively be adjudicated upon by the respondent Chancellor. This Court is, therefore, required to consider the rival submissions of the parties made on the said issue. Section 57 of the Act was amended by the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Bihar Act 21 of 2007). After amendment of Section 57 by the said amending Act, it reads as under: the provisions of “57(1)- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the statute made thereunder appointment to the post of teachers and officers (other than Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Dean of the Faculty) of the University shall be made by the University on the Selection Committee consisting of the following members:- (1) the recommendations of The Vice-Chancellor the of University concerned; One member to be nominated by the One member to be nominated by the (2) Chancellor (3) Government. (4) Three experts not connected with the University the Vice- to be nominated by Chancellor from a panel of not less than seven names approved by the Academic Council for each post, out of which at least one member should belong to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribes and two shall be from outside the State. Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 5 (5) The head of the department of the discipline concerned. (ii) The selection committee shall prepare a merit list for appointment of teachers and officers from amongst the eligible candidates and make recommendation for their appointment according to merit in conformity with the reservation roster prepared by the university in accordance with law relating to reservation in appointment in force in the State. (iii) Quorum for meeting of the selection committee- Quorum for meeting of the selection committee shall be five in which presence of at least two experts shall be necessary. By the said amending Act, a new provision namely Section 57B was added which reads thus: selection “57B- Procedure of to be the Statute- Notwithstanding prescribed by anything contained in any provision of this Act, Rule, Statute, Ordinance, or any other law for the in force, the Selection Committee time being constituted under Sections 57 and 57A of this Act shall be bound by the procedure of selection to be prescribed by Statute to be framed by the University in accordance with procedure prescribed under the Act”. Earlier the selection and appointment to the post of teachers and officers (other than the Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Dean of Faculty) was to be made on the recommendation of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission (for short “ the Commission”) which was granted a statutory status equivalent to the State Public Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 6 Service Commission under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. After amendment, the said function was assigned to the Selection Committee consisting of the members set out therein. The procedure for constituting the Selection Committee has been prescribed under the new provisions contained in Sections 57(1) and 57B. Section 57B provides that the Selection Committee shall be bound by the procedure of Selection Committee prescribed by the statute to be framed by the University in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. The contention of Mr. Chatterji is that the Chancellor and other officers/authorities of the University have been assigned specific powers in the preceding provisions of the Act. None of those provisions relate to the constitution of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee having taken up the role of the erstwhile Commission has a statutory function like the functions discharged by the Bihar Public Service Commission and, as such, any decision or action taken by the said Selection Committee shall not be amenable to the authority of the respondent Chancellor. He has relied in this regard on paragraph 9 of Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh (supra). It has been strenuously contended that the Selection Committee is a perpetual body having perpetual succession. Per contra, the respondents have submitted that by Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 7 virtue of the amendment brought in Section 57 of the Act preceded by Bihar Act 19 of 2007 whereby the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission Act, 1987 was repealed, the selection of the candidates for the post in question is to be made by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions contained in the amended provisions of the Act. The question as raised in this application is about the gross illegalities committed by the University in the constitution of the Selection Committee. The orders or the proceedings by which such Selection Committee was constituted can be adequately/effectively be examined by the respondent Chancellor in terms of Section 9(4) of the Act. The creation of the Selection Committee by different orders/resolutions of the University is, in fact, the subject matter of consideration in the present proceeding. It has next been urged that the Selection Committee is not a permanent body in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Every time, a selection process is initiated for diverse posts, a fresh Selection Committee has to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the selection and empanelment of the experts on the Selection Committee was grossly in violation of the provisions Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 8 contained in the Act and the statutes framed thereunder. The constitution of the Selection Committee is, therefore, under challenge which is subject matter of consideration. In other words, the manner the baby is born is to be investigated/examined. Mr. Narayan learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the private respondents has highlighted that by virtue of a statutory provision, the Commission was created which was assigned the role now assigned to the Selection Committee after repeal of the said Act by which the Commission was constituted followed by amendment in Section 57 of the Act. The Commission constituted under the Act was given statutory status whereas the same has not been given to the Selection Committee constituted under Section 57 after amendment in the Act. The said Selection Committee cannot be said to be a perpetual body having perpetual succession. Citing illustration, it has been contended that for each selection process, a fresh Selection Committee is to be constituted consisting of diverse members as provided in the Act and the statute framed thereunder. Even according to the stand of the University, the present selection made by the Selection Committee no longer exists. He has further submitted that considering the vacillating stand of the University in the two affidavits filed in reply, it becomes all the more appropriate that Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 9 the dispute be raised before the respondent Chancellor for its adjudication who being the head of the University would be better positioned or equipped to examine the claim/counter claim after summoning relevant records as deem fit by the respondent Chancellor. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, counsel for another set of private respondent brought to the notice of this Court the stand of the University in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as reflected from paragraphs 13 and 14 wherein a stand has been taken that the Selection Committee constituted by the then Vice Chancellor of the University was not in accordance with Section 57(1) of the Act (after amendment) read with Section 57B of the Act as well as the revised statute dated 30.6.2008. He also drew attention of the Court to Annexure- C appended to the rejoinder to the reply on behalf of respondent Nos. 17 and 24 from perusal whereof it appears that the Hon’ble Chancellor after due consideration of the report submitted by the Acting Vice Chancellor of the University in exercise of its power under Section 9(4) of the Act annulled the proceedings of the Syndicate made/held on 12.1.2011 and 18.1.2011 wherein approval of such appointment of the private respondents herein was/were annulled. It has thus been submitted by him that the Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 10 Hon’ble Chancellor has already an occasion to consider matters arising out of the present selection of the respondents and as such, the present dispute/issue can also be effectively considered by the Hon’ble Chancellor. On a consideration of rival submissions made by the parties, it appears to this Court that the primal issue raised in this application relates to the constitution of the Selection Committee itself. After amendment in Section 57 of the Act, such selection is now to be made by the Selection Committee to be constituted in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and the statutes framed under Section 57B of the Act. The proceedings or orders passed by the Officers of the University including the Vice Chancellor in constituting the Selection Committee is/are therefore required to be enquired/investigated by the Hon’ble Chancellor. It does not appear from the materials placed on record that the Selection Committee has been given any statutory recognition other than the Act itself which was earlier accorded to the College Service Commission constituted by an Act which now stands repealed. Even otherwise, the reliance placed by Mr. Chatterji learned counsel for the petitioner on Dr. Bimal Prasad Singh (supra) does not appear to be appropriate. The said observation was made by a learned Single Bench of this Court in relation to Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 11 the allegations concerning award of marks for particular item and grant of marks in interview for extraneous considerations and thereafter preparation of panel for selection of the teachers. This is amply clear from paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said report. Creation of the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statute framed thereunder was not the dispute raised therein. In the present case, the primal issue is with regard to the creation of the Selection Committee. Whether the Selection Committee was constituted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and statute framed thereunder is, therefore, the matter which is required to be examined. It also appears from the materials on record that the Hon’ble Chancellor had in the past dealt with matters arising out of such selection inasmuch as certain orders were passed by him. The vacillating stand in the two different and distinct affidavits filed on behalf of the University in the wake of change in the office of Vice Chancellor of the University is yet another relevant aspect which require consideration and adjudication. Various related facts reflecting from records of the University may be required to be examined while deciding the dispute raised in the application. The powers of the Vice Chancellor or the Chancellor in the light of the amendment brought in Section 57 of the Act would also extend to Patna High Court CWJC No.3428 of 2010 (14) dt.12-11-2013 12 the examination/consideration of the legality or otherwise in the constitution of the Selection Committee. No provision in the Act limiting the jurisdiction of the Chancellor has been brought to the notice of the Court. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have an effective and efficacious remedy of filing a representation/claim before the Hon’ble Chancellor of the University in terms of Section 9(4) of the Act. Let the petitioners invoke the said jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Chancellor for ventilation of their grievance in accordance with law. If any such representation is filed within four weeks from today the Hon’ble Chancellor shall dispose of the same in accordance with law as quickly as possible. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)