Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16307 of 2009 ====================================================== Vashistha Narain Tripathi S/O Late Brahmdeo Tripathy R/O Village- Haraji, P.S. Awatar Nagar, District- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, through its Registrar 2. The Syndicate of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University through its Chainman (Vice Chancellor), Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga , Sanskrit University 3. The Vice - Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University 4. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University 5. The Governing Body of Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Hajipur(Vaishali), through its President 6. The Secretary, Governing Body of Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Hajipur,(Vaishali) 7. Sh. Jai Kishore Pandey, the Incharge- Principal Of Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Hajipur(Vaishali) 8. Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Ojha, Sahityacharya, Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Hajipur, (Vaishali) 9. Sh. Ravindra Nath Shukla , Sahityacharya, Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Hajipur(Vaishali) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Namrata Mishra For the University : Mr. K N Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. S S Sundaram For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Manish Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 13 04-01-2013 If we go by the proverb that a mountain out of molehill has been created in the present case, it would not be misplaced. It is a long drawn battle raised by the petitioner for vindication of his position as well as his right in the manner of his removal from the post of Principal by the Managing 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2009 (13) dt.04-01-2013 2 / 6 Committee of what is known as Brahmdeo Muni Udasin Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Hajipur (Vaishali).
Decision
2. The impugned order is supposed to be based on the basis of a resolution of the Governing Body dated 5.10.1996, which was communicated to the petitioner on 10.10.1996 in terms of Annexure-19. Petitioner had challenged the said order earlier in a writ application but due to availability of a statutory right of appeal before the Senate, Court disposed of the writ application allowing the petitioner to pursue the appeal before the University, which has now been done after many-many years, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by virtue of Annexure-23, which is also the subject matter of challenge now in the present writ application. The University authorities has held his removal to be valid on the ground that there were only two posts available for Sahitya and there were two persons namely, Akhilesh Kumar Ojha and Rajani Kant Ojha working on the said post and therefore petitioner cannot be accommodated or continued or could have been appointed on the post of Principal. 3. Annexure-1 is the advertisement which was issued by the Managing Committee way back on 23rd October, 1981 to fill up the post of Principal. The requisite qualification has been indicated therein. Petitioner was the person who was finally 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2009 (13) dt.04-01-2013 3 / 6 selected and appointed on the post and continued to work in that capacity on the basis of approval given by the College Service Commission and confirmation of the same by the Vice- Chancellor. After more than 13 years of his working the Managing Committee suddenly decided to remove him by virtue of Annexure-19 based on a resolution dated 5.10.1996, which has not seen the light of the day by any of the authorities of the University or even this Court till date. A notice was issued upon the Members of the Managing Committee and its functionaries, who have chosen not to appear despite valid service of notice and we do not know as to what exactly had gone into to the resolution which formed the basis for the impugned order contained in Annexure-19. 4. The University by virtue of the decision communicated to the petitioner contained in Annexure-23 seems to have gone off at a tangent in deciding the issue as to how many posts of lecturer were in the college. This Court fails to understand as to what is the relevance of that adjudication on the issue of removal of the petitioner from the post of Principal. The fact stands that the advertisement contained in Annexure-1 does not indicate that the person had to be appointed as a lecturer or was going to be picked up from the set of lecturers who were working in the college. The 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2009 (13) dt.04-01-2013 4 / 6 advertisement is very clear that appointment was going to be made on the post of Principal with the requisite qualification indicated therein. Petitioner who seems to have had the qualification, at least in one of the subject and he was duly appointed. His name recommended, approved by the College Service Commission and duly affirmed and endorsement was made thereto by the Vice Chancellor of the University i.e. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. All was well for 13 years. Petitioner performed his duties in that capacity and there has been no let or hindrance till the resolution by the Managing Committee was taken. 5. Learned senior counsel representing the University is clear and categorical in his assertion that the records and documents were not produced before the University authorities when the matter was enquired against the Managing Committee. The absence of those documents therefore had its limitation in the manner in which adjudication could be done, based on the submissions made by the petitioner, the private respondent and the limited assistance given by the Management Committee. 6. Counsel for the private respondent submits that he is holder of a post in his own capacity. He has no quarrel with the petitioner if the issue of petitioner’s continuance on a post of 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2009 (13) dt.04-01-2013 5 / 6 Sahityacharya does not become an issue. He is not claimant to the post of the Principal and the present adjudication made by the University and subsequent orders obviously created some kind of doubt on his continuance. 7. The apprehension of the private respondent is unfounded. The appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Principal having valid qualification. This fact was scrutinized by the College Service Commission and endorsed by the University. That post was unhindered for more than a decade. Obviously some kind of change in the Managing Committee has brought about a change in the mind-set with regard to the decision taken earlier in favour of the petitioner. 8. Court also fails to appreciate that if there was a resolution duly taken by the Managing Committee against the petitioner, that resolution should have been produced either before the University or before this Court to verify the ground on which such a decision came to be taken. In fact, most the decisions which are under challenge are based on only presumption and not on actual state of affairs. 9. Court has further no hesitation in recording that a duly constituted statutory bodies had examined the status of the petitioner before recognizing his appointment as such on the post 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.16307 of 2009 (13) dt.04-01-2013 6 / 6 of Principal. If that be so, the same cannot be annulled in such a cursory manner by the Managing Committee. If the Managing Committee was of the opinion that wrong selection had been made on a misplaced kind of factual aspect or eligibility of the petitioner, the right step would have been to approach the College Service Commission to reconsider the issue but it cannot be undone in the manner in which it has been done. Further unnecessarily the bogey of number of sanctioned post of lecturer was raised by the University when the issue was appointment, as per advertisement, on the post of Principal being the primary issue. 10. Writ application is allowed. Anneuxre-19 and 23 are quashed. 11. Sine the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2000, there is no question of any posting or reinstatement of petitioner on the post. However, since removal of the petitioner was per say illegal, he shall be entitled to the benefit which he may claim from the date of his removal till the date of superannuation from the said Managing Committee. R.K.Pathak/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)