VICE-CHANCELLOR Vs. GOVERNING BODY OF JAGJIWAN AVODYA SANSKRIT COLLEGE CONVENER MOHAN MISHRA SON OF DOMAN MISHRA; SACHCHIDANAND SHARMA SON OF YADUNANDAN SHARMA; VIJAY SINGH SON OF JAI RAM SINGH; KAPILDEO SHARMA SON OF HARSAHAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal preferred under Clause 10 to the Letters Patent is directed against the Judgment and order dated 5th August 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3982 of 1993. The matter at dispute is the appointment of the respondent No. 4 -- the writ petitioner as a clerk in Jagjeevan Avodya Sanskrit College respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the College ). The College is affiliated to Sri Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as "the University ). The appeal is preferred by the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was a student in the College. In the year 1974, though a minor, he was appointed as a clerk in the College. He continued in service till the year 1993. In the year 1989 or there about a dispute arose whether the writ petitioner was senior to one Vijay Singh, another clerk in the College. The writ petitioner claimed that he was appointed as a Head Clerk while the aforesaid Vijay Singh, respondent No. 3, was appointed as a clerk in the year 1979. After a round of litigation the matter was referred to the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor under his order dated 16th February 1993 recorded the findings that on the date of his appointment the writ petitioner was a minor; that the College did not have a sanctioned post of Head Clerk; that the writ petitioner had admitted that his appointment was of 1st July 1977; that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made without following the due procedure. In view of the said findings the Principal of the College was directed to terminate the service of the writ petitioner with immediate effect. Consequently, the service of the writ petitioner came to be terminated on 22nd February 1993.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved he filed CWJC No. 3982 of 1993 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition the writ petitioner claimed that the Vice Chancellor had not only made order against the writ petitioner but he had also recorded findings against the aforesaid Vijay Singh. Against Vijay Singh the Vice Chancellor had observed; that his appointment was of 1st July 1979 but he had produced a forged appointment letter of 1st July 1969; that the said Vijay Singh had manipulated a forged approval letter and had thus perpetrated fraud. The Vice Chancellor had directed for termination of service of the said Vijay Singh also.