PRAMOD SINGH CHANDRA-WANSHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNIVERSITIES all over the world are known to confer degrees, Honouris Causa on great and learned persons. But the Magadh University in this State has acquired the dubious distinction in that some of its officers actively joined in the conspiracy to give the degree of M.A., History to one Shikha Gupta (respondentno. 7) whose husband Anurag Gupta, I.PS. (respondent no. 6) was posted at the material time as Superintendent of Police, Gaya where the office of the University is situated. The University declared the aforesaid Shikha Gupta to have passed the Master degree examination in history for the session 1993 -95, securing 1st position in 1st Class, even though out of the eight papers comprising the course, she appeared in the examination of Paper 1 only and was shown absent in the records of the Examination Centre in the remaining seven papers. If this was not all she was also given appointment, during the tenure of her husband at Gaya, as part time lecturer in Law in Anugrah Memorial College, Gaya, a constituent unit of the University. Needless to say that the appointment was made without any advertisement and with no consideration that she did not fulfil the minimum requirements for working as lecturer. The salary paid to her as part time lecturer of Law is shown to have been received, at least for some months under receipt signed by her husband.

(2.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging before this court the action of the University in declaring respondent no. 7 as having passed the M.A., History examination for the session 1993 -95 in 1st Class and further its action in giving appointment to respondent no. 7 and one Jalil Akhatar Olai, respondent no. 8, as part time Lecturers in Law in A.M. College, Gaya. The writ petition furnished the relevant facts stating (in para 4 of the writ petition) the date on which respondent no. 7 was admitted to M.A., History course (1993 -95) in Gaya College, Gaya at the fag end of the session. It further stated that though she did not have the required percentage of attendance she was allowed to appear in the University examination for M.A., History held in September, 1996; she was assigned Roll Gay No. 252 and her registration number was 37252 of 1993; her Centre of Examination was at A.N. College, Gaya. It was further stated (in paras 8 to 12 of the writ petition) that respondent no. 7 appeared only in the examination of Paper held on 5.9.1996 and she was absent in all the remaining seven papers the examinations of which were held between 16.9.1996 to 16.12.1996. These statements made in the writ petition were substantiated by bringing on record as annexures the following documents :

(3.) IT was further stated in the writ Petition that respondent no. 7 along with respondent no. 8 was appointed as parttime lecturer in law in A.M. College, Gaya. The minimum qualification for appointment as lecturer in law is either passing the LL.M. examination or having LL.B degree with seven years experience at the bar. It was stated in the writ petition that respondent no. 7 possessed neither of the two alternative qualifications and yet she was appointed as a lecturer in law even without any public advertisement or following a process of selection. It was alleged that the appointment was obtained by her husband, respondent no. 6 by abusing his official position and it was the result of a conspiracy between her husband and the officers of the University. It was further alleged that though she did not take any classes etc., she was paid her monthly salary and that payments of salary were made to her disregarding the objections raised by the Accountant and the Cashier of the College. It was also stated that the cheque for her salary for the period March to July, 1997 was paid against a receipt, dated 5.10.1997 signed by her husband, respondent no. 6. The relevant documents concerning her illegal appointment as lecturer in law are at Annexures 6 and 7.