LAWS(PAT)-2003-12-68

HARISHCHANDRA JHA Vs. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY

Decided On December 18, 2003
Harishchandra Jha Appellant
V/S
KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not necessary to keep this matter pending. It relates to the appointment of lecturers at the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. The seven petitioners Messrs. Krishna Kant Mishra, Babu Prasad Jha, Harishchandra Jha, Triveni Kant Jha, Man Mohan Jha, Ram Bilas Mishra and Raj Narayan Jha filed a writ petition (CWJC. No. 804/1995) when they faced apprehension and/or their emoluments were stopped.

(2.) IN so far as the facts and circumstances, as emerge, it is thus : Petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 are Messrs. Krishna Kant Mishra, Babu Prasad Jha and Triveni Kant Jha. It is accepted in the counter affidavit in paragraph -9 that upon a committee constituted by the learned Chancellor they received a status of absorbed teachers. The counter affidavit acknowledges that these lecturers have been absorbed and that this is within the jurisdiction of the Chancellor to confer such a status. The status has not been defined. As teachers who had been absorbed or regularised, the court fails to understand why emoluments had not been given even though there was a direction to this effect in the judgment on the writ petition dated 18 December, 1996; the direction is contained in paragraph -10. This Court can only record that these lecturers will be entitled to receive their emoluments, as the Court had directed, with effect from 18 December, 1996 as of date in addition to interest from this date @ 9%.

(3.) THEN , there are the cases of petitioners 5, 6 and 7. These are Messrs. Man Mohan Jha, Ram Bilas Mishra and Raj Narayan Jha. The case in the counter affidavit is that the posts againt which they were appointed were sanctioned. It is mentioned that they had not been appointed in pursuance of an advertisement in a newspaper and on the recommendation of the selection committee. No details have been given in the counter affidavit. The appointment is not bad for want of sanction but only, to the effect, that an advertisement may not have been made.