BABULAL RAM S/O KHADERAN RAM Vs. CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY AND VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ application praying therein to quash the order dated 2.6.1984 (Annexure - 1), an office order of the respondent Magadh University, issued pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate, which held that the appointments of petitioner and others in the M.V. College, Buxar, as named in the order, were invalid and void ab-initio, which was held on the basis of a report of a subcommittee which had found that their appointments were not on sanctioned posts and without prior approval of State Government as required under Section 35(2) of the Act. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of memo No. 475 dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure - 13), issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, whereby the Registrar of the University was informed that, the State Government, after examining the records and staffing pattern, has decided to reject the representation of the petitioner, submitted in terms of the orders passed by this Court in his earlier writ application. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat him in continuous service and pay him salary like other class IV employee of the College, namely respondent No. 7, or direct them to adjust him also, after relaxing his age, if required, as done in the case of other similarly situated persons on the direction of this Court, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2521 of 1989.

(2.) As per the pleadings, facts of the case, are that an advertisement was published in a daily newspaper, Indian Nation, on 10.7.1981, inviting applications for filling up class III & class IV posts in the college in question. Petitioner and several others applied. A selection committee was constituted which held interview on 17.1.1982 and the select list prepared by it was sent by the Principal to the University on 18.1.1982. Vice Chancellor passed orders for appointment strictly in accordance with the seriatim of select list. Accordingly, order of appointment dated 26.4.1982 (Annexure - 2) was issued and communicated to petitioner and others by the Principal. Petitioner, along with others, joined in the College on 1.5.1982. However, after about two years, pursuant to a decision of the Syndicate dated 14.5.1984, the Registrar issued the 1st impugned order. Petitioner and 17 others filed statutory representation before the Chancellor on 22.6.1984 and comments were called for by the Chancellor's Secretariat from the University on the said representation by letter dated 11.7.1984. Petitioner and others filed a reminder also, on which also comments were called for by letter dated 27.2.1987. On receipt of this communication from the Chancellor's Secretariat, University constituted a committee to examine the cases of non-teaching employees of the College and to submit a report, and this fact was communicated to the Chancellor's Secretariat vide letter dated 11.6.1987 (Annexure - 3). While the matter remained pending at that stage, the Registrar of the University issued an office order dated 2.2.1988 (Annexure - 4), on the orders of the Vice Chancellor, for payment of salary of 48 class III and class IV employees of the College, which included 7 petitioners before the Chancellor out of 18. However, petitioner's name was not there among the 48. On 19.7.1988, one Markandey Singh, who was also similarly affected as the petitioner, filed representation before the Chancellor (Annexure - 5) alleging that the committee had submitted report for absorption of all the 18 petitioners before him, but the University had issued orders for absorption of 7 only, illegally leaving out the rest 11, on which also a report was called for. However, the University did not submit its report to the Chancellor in respect of their first representation dated 22.6.1984 and it has remained pending till now.

(3.) It is further pleaded that all the appointments had been made by the Vice Chancellor on the basis of interview and select list and on the basis of staffing pattern, as none of the posts had been sanctioned or approved from before by the government. It is pleaded that all the persons who were appointed by annexure - 2 or in whose respect orders have been passed for payment of salary by annexure - 4 are in the same category and post of none of them had been sanctioned/approved by the government from before in terms of Section 35(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The 11 persons, the left out petitioners before the Chancellor, including the present petitioner, were not paid salary from their initial date of appointment and the persons covered by annexure - 4 have also been paid salary from 2.2.1988 only. In the circumstances, all the said 11 decided to move this Court and they entrusted the task of filing a writ application in this Court to one Raghunath Singh. Accordingly C.W.J.C. No. 2521 of 1989 was filed, in which due to some mistake, only 10 persons were arrayed as party petitioners and the present petitioner was left out, although this petitioner always remained under the impression that he was also a petitioner in the case. The said writ application was disposed of by order dated 15.2.1990 (Annexure -6) with specific directions to the University in respect of adjustment of the writ petitioners. Petitioner, thereafter, still under the impression that he was also a writ petitioner, joined along with the said writ petitioners, and filed a petition on 24.4.1990 (Annexure - 7), before the respondent Vice Chancellor of Magadh University for necessary action in accordance with the said order of this Court. However no orders were passed on the said petition in compliance of the orders of this Court.