RAJNI BALA AGRAWAL Vs. LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-13 by which respondent No. 4 was transferred as Principal, Jhumak Mehaseth Dr. Dharmapnya Lall Manila Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani (hereinafter to be referred to as "the College") and Annexure-16 by which Annexure-13 was modified, but not with regard to respondent No. 4. Prayer has also been made for declaration that the petitioner is the principal of the College snd not the Professor in charge as described in Annexure-12. The main claim of the petitioner is that her services as a teacher before the College was affiliated to the Intermediate Council shall have to be counted for the purpose of computing whether she had the requisite teaching experience for allowing her to continue as principal after the College was made a constituent College.

(2.) The writ petition was heard on a number of days by a Division Bench. The Division Bench noticed that on the point whether the teaching experience of a person in a college not affiliated shall be considered for calculating total years of experience as a teacher, there are two conflicting judgments of this court. In CWJC No. 107 of 1968 : Ramawatar Prasad Agrawal and another v Ramchandra Prasad Sharma and others, disposed of on 21st July 1971, it was held that teaching experience of a lecturer in an unaffiliated college shall have to be reckoned, whereas in Sri Chandra Deo Jha v. The State of Bihar and others, 1982 BLJ 362 ; it was held that such teaching experience cannot be taken into consideration. Tn view of these two conflicting judgments of two Division Bench of this court, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. This is how this matter has been listed before this Bench.

(3.) When the application was taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submitted that transfer of respondent No 4 as principal of the College has been revoked and in his place nobody has been posted as Principal. In view of this development during the pendency of this writ application, prayer of the petitioner so far quashing Annexures-13 and 16 has become infructuous. The only question which remains to be decided is ; whether the petitioner in the facts of this case can claim that she is entitled to continue as Principal of the College.