SHESH NATH SINGH Vs. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to J.J. College, Ara, a Constituent College of the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara in the district of Bhojpur. In the year 1993 in J.J. College there was vacancy as against the sanctioned post of Store Keeper in the Department of Zoology and Botany. The Principal of J.J. College requested the University for permission to appoint the Petitioner and one Krishna Bhusan Pandey on the post of Store Keeper in the Department of Zoology and Botany respectively on daily wages. The University through the Registrar of University granted approval, pursuant whereto, Petitioner was appointed as Store Keeper in the Department of Zoology on daily wages in J.J. College. State Government after three years issued direction that all daily wagers should be terminated in the University. Petitioner was accordingly terminated in the year 1996. The matter was taken up by the Senate and referred to Sub-Committee of Senate, who considered the matter and on 26.5.1998 directed reinstatement of Petitioner and several others. On 10.11.1998 University ordered reinstatement of Petitioner and similarly situated. Again in 1999 University, pursuant to some directives from the Office of the Chancellor, terminated the services of the Petitioner and others in June/July 1999. One of the persons who was terminated was one Paras Nath Sinha, who filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6048 of 1999. The challenge was to the order of termination passed by the University in the light of the direction of the Chancellor. The matter was contested. This Court set aside the order of termination as also the order of the Chancellor and the writ petition was allowed. Petitioner had also moved this Court and his writ petition was then taken up and his writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7564 of 1999 was allowed on 24.11.2004 alongwith another case. Petitioner was, thus, ultimately allowed to join again on 24.5.2005. As in spite of order in case of Petitioner for payment of current salary, the salary was not being paid, the Petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 1011 of 2005, in which University appeared and undertook to pay the salary and the contempt application was accordingly disposed of on 23.1.2006. In spite of paying salary to the Petitioner as an employee, Petitioner was being treated as a daily wagers and paid the minimum amount payable to a semi-skilled person on daily rated basis. While disposing of Petitioner's writ petition University was granted liberty to enquire into the validity of Petitioner's appointment in accordance with law but as the matter was old this had to be done within six months. Soon after the disposal of the writ petition, Petitioner was served with a show cause notice, which is contained in Annexure-15 dated 31.5.2005, issued by the Registrar. By this order, 12 years after Petitioner's initial appointment, Petitioner is now being asked to produce papers to show that he was validly appointed, after following due procedure. To top it all Petitioner was asked to show whether his services has been approved by the State Government and whether the post was sanctioned or not. These I am noticing because, as noted earlier, it is not in dispute that before Petitioner was appointed the Principal had sought approval from the University and by name University approved Petitioner's appointment. That was way back in 1993. The University is issuing this letter in 2005, as if, the Petitioner has suddenly dropped from the sky and claims a post and the University is unaware of his existence earlier. However, Petitioner submitted his reply to the best of his ability and till date no further action is taken and the Petitioner though in service for almost 20 years and having been appointed with the approval of the University on a duly sanctioned vacant post is still treated as a daily wages employee who gets pay only when University functions. He is not entitled to any other benefit including sick leave, casual leave or earned leave. He is virtually a bonded labourer in the University on daily wages. He has, thus, come to this Court for a direction that enough is enough, kindly regularize me if not on anything other ground but on the ground of continuously working for almost 20 years.

(2.) On behalf of University the stand has been taken that State Government may not approve the services of the Petitioner, the consequence whereof would be that Petitioner would have to be dismissed. University can thus not regularize the person. In my view, this is the first issue in question, which I would decide as first.

(3.) Veer Kunwar Singh University was carved out from Magadh University when provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 were brought into force. A plain look at the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 would show that University is virtually a body corporate and autonomous in all its functional aspects. Its dependence upon the State is only because of finance and thus State has a very limited role in this matter. Its role is limited to sanction of post (Section 35) and funding the University in respect of the employees vis--vis the sanctioned posts and other necessity. The appointing authority for Class-III and Class-IV employee in the University is the Vice-Chancellor and not the State Government. Therefore, the role and duty of Vice-Chancellor cannot be usurped by the State, so long as the appointment is on sanctioned vacant post. Any order of the Vice-Chancellor can be set aside by the Chancellor and not by the State Government. Yet, the State Government keeps enquiring and directing the Universities in matter of employment of Teachers and non-teaching staff. I fail to see why and I fail to see how? Under Section 35(2) of the Act, a provision that all appointments has to be made with prior approval of the State Government, if that were left as it is, that would have destroyed the functional autonomy of the University. This Court in the Full Bench decision in the case of Braj Kishore Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1997 1 PLJR 509 has clearly held that Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Bihar Universities Act had to be read down to only mean that University would make appointments only on post sanctioned by the Government. The appointments may not be subject to prior approval of the Government. The approval can be post facto. Thus, the only role to my mind of Government is that they are bound to pay for salary and wages in relation to sanctioned posts and that is their liability. Who occupies which post is the look out of the University subject to the appointee being qualified. The State is not above the Chancellor. The Chancellor has the power of superintendence over the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor is appointed under Section 10 by the Chancellor. Office of Chancellor is neither under the control of nor under the superintendence of State. This is a well thought scheme for very good reason. Universities are foundation for the next generation. Thus, the law obliges us keep it away from governmental politics and political Government interference. It is made autonomous and is isolated from invasion of Government. It is because of that reason Governor is made the Chancellor to act as a filter or buffer between the Government and the University so that the governmental interference is minimized. Therefore, it only sanctions the post. That is the duty of the Government and to pay for the sanctioned post. Appointments and others are beyond the Government and not subject to control of a Government. Thus, if the post is sanctioned, the University is bound to be given the money by the Government in relation to that post because that is the legal obligation casts on the Government. By this process Government cannot encroach upon the autonomy of the University and start questioning as to who is occupying the post how was he brought in the post and such other questions because that is the responsibility of the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor and not of the Government otherwise functional autonomy as contemplated under the Act would be totally eroded and Government will arrogate to itself the power of superintendence over the University which the Act does not give it. Thus, the plea taken by the Respondents in this regards is negatived.