BHOLA PD SINGH Vs. PROF U A GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Bhola Prasad Singh, Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra, on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has obtained a rule from this Court against Professor U.A. Goswami, Head of the Department of Mathematics of the said College, respondent 1, Professor I.H. Rizvi, Head of the Department of Persian, at present Principal of Millat College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, respondent 2, Professor Sitanath Jha, Head of the Department of Economics, Rajendra College, respondent 3, the Governing Body of the College, respondent 4, the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur, respondent 5, the Vice-Chancellor (respondent 6) and the Chancellor (respondent 7) of the said University, to show cause why the order of the Chancellor dated the 17th of September, 1962 (annexure B to the application) annulling the resolutions of the Syndicate of the Bihar University passed at its meetings held on the 24th June, 1960, and 7th and 8th October, 1961, approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College, be not quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 by filing a counter-affidavit with annexures and also by placing relevant original records from the office of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, copies of some of which, on our direction, were supplied to us at the time of the hearing of the application, and the learned Advocate-General has opposed the application on their behalf. Respondent 1 also filed a counter-affidavit and his case was argued by his learned advocate, Mr. B.C. Ghosh. Mr. Keshari Kishore Saran appeared at the hearing or the application on behalf of respondent 2 and adopted the argument of the learned Advocate-General. Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur appearing for respondent 3 adopted a neutral attitude, as he put it, and neither supported the petitioner nor opposed his application. Nobody appeared on behalf of the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also filed his replies to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 1 and respondents 5 to 7, on whose behalf further affidavits in reply have also been filed. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application, which I shall be mentioning in this judgment, will be on the basis of the statements made in the petition and the various affidavits as also on the basis of the copies of the original documents supplied to us at the hearing of the application.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that in the year 1960 the post of the Principal of the College became vacant and the Governing Body decided to fill up the post by promotion from amongst the qualified teachers of the College by a resolution passed in a meeting held on April 25, 1960, and invited applications from the qualified teachers of the College, the minimum qualification being 10 years' teaching experience and second class master's degree. In response to the invitation for applications, the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 applied for the post. The Governing Body authorised Shri U. Vaidyanathan, I.A.S., the then District Magistrate of Saran, and a member of the Governing Body of the College, to scrutinise the claims and comparative merits of all the four teachers who had applied for the post of Principal. He recommended the case of the petitioner and the members of the Governing Body, as a whole, duly considered the claims and merits of the 4 applicants and appointed the petitioner as Principal of the College by a resolution passed at its meeting on the 15th May, 1960. The appointment of the petitioner as Principal was forwarded to the University of Bihar for approval Under Arts. 4 and 5 of Chapter XVI of the Bihar University Statute, hereinafter referred to as the Statute. The Syndicate, by a resolution passed at its meeting held on the 24th of June, 1960, approved of the petitioner's appointment. But, in the meantime, according to his case, he had taken over charge as Principal of the College on the 18th of May, 1960. His case further is that on the 30th May, 1960, respondent 1 wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Governing Body for reconsideration of the matter and forwarded a copy of the same to the University. The said representation of respondent 1 was considered by the Governing Body and it was rejected in its meeting held on the 18th May, 1961, when the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College was confirmed under Article 7 of Statute XVI.

(3.) The petitioner's case further is that on the 18th March, 1961, respondent 1 sent a memorandum to the Vice-chancellor to consider his case and it was rejected by the latter on the 31st March, 1961. The said order of rejection of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated by the University by a letter dated 44-61. On the 14th June, 1951 respondent 1 again made a representation to the Vice-Chancellar for reconsideration of his case, and it was rejected by the Syndicate in its meeting held on the 7th and 8th October, 1961. The petitioner's case further is that respondent 1 made a representation to the Chancellor and the latter, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also after considering the report of the University, rejected the representation on 25-6-1962 (it was really on 11-6-1962 but communicated by a letter dated 25-6-1962). But later on, the Chancellor reviewed his previous order, cancelled it and passed the impugned order dated 17th of September, 1962, annulling the resolution of the Syndicate dated the 24th June, 1960, approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College and the resolution dated the 7th and 8th October, 1961, rejecting the representation of respondent 1 and reiterating its approval to the appointment of the petitioner as such.