BIRENDRA BEHARI LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these 5 writ petitions relate to the Magadh university. These petitions are directed against the demotion of the petitioners who have been holding the post of Readers/professors in certain colleges of the Magadh University, to the rank of lecturers. These cases alongwith other similar cases relating to Patna University and Bhagalpur University were heard together and we have to-day delivered the main judgment in repsct of the Patna University cases wherein we have discussed in details all the submissions made.

(2.) The facts and the law involved in the present petitions are mostly common in respect of most of the aspects. Only certain dates differ as petitioners differ. We shall indicated the same herein below : (a) In C. W. J. C. No. 2238/93 there are 8 petitioners all of whom are teachers of the |magadh University. They were all promoted as Readers on temporary basis in the year 1987 on the basis of the recommendation of the scrutiny committee as provided in the Time-Bound Scheme. Subsequently the Commission gave its concurrence for their promotion to the said post of Readers and the University issued formal notifications to that effect confirming them to the said post of Readers. Thereafter, the Commission by its order dated 15-2-1993 withdrew its concurrence given earlier and, accordingly, notifications were issued by the university on 16th February, 1993, demoting them to the post of lecturess. It may be pointed out in this context that petitioner No. 1 Kama! Kumar Yadav was aho promoted as professor on provisional basis by notification dated 3-5-1991 with effect from 31-1-1989. (b) In C. W. J. No. 2295 (93 there are two petitioners. These two petitioners were promoted as Readers on temporary basis on recommendation of the scrutiny committee in 1987. In April, 1992, the Commission made recommendation for their confirmation in the said post of Reader and, accordingly, in May, 1992 the University issued the formal notification to that effect. In February, 1993, such recommendations were withdrawn by the Commission as a result of which the University also issued necessary notifications demoting the petitioners from the post of Reader to the post of lecturer. (c) In C. W. J C. No. 2593/93 there are six petitioners, who, after holding the post of lecturers for the terms required, were promoted as Readers on provisional basis on the recommendation of the scrutiny committee in August and November, 1987, respectively. In all these cases, the Commission gave its concurrence to their appointment as Readers in December, 1991, February, 1992 and April, 1992 respectively and it was followed by formal notifications by the University confirming them to the said post from the respective dates on substantive basis. Thereafter by similar order dated 16th February, 1993, the Commission withdrew its recommendation and consequently the University also issued notification demoting the petitioners. (d) In C. W. J. C. No. 3065/93 there is a sole petitioner who was appointed on a temporary basis upon recommendation of tha scrutiny committee in August, 1987. The Commission gave its concurrence to the same, like in other cases ; in December, 1992, but the University did not issue any notification in respect of him pursuant to the same. In the meanwhile, in february, 1993, the concurrence was withdrawn by the Commission and the university issued notification demoting the petitioner to the post of lecturer accordingly. (e) In C. W. J. C. No. 2483/93 there are altogether 4 petitioners. In 1987/1988 these petitioners were promoted on temporary basis as Readers as a result of the recommendation of the scrutiny Committee. In respect of these 4 petitioners the commission bad sent its recommendation for confirmation in the post of Readers on substantive basis but before any formal notification was issued by the Magadh University, such recommendation of the Commission given earlier was withdrawn by the commission on 16th February, 1993.

(3.) The case of the Commission, as made out, in the affidavit is as follows -that in the instant case the University forwarded the name of the petitioner alongwith Screening report and other papers to the commission for its recommendation. That the Commission examined the report of Screening Committee and other relevant papers concerning the petitioner under the impression that is duly constituted Screening Committee has examined the documents of the petitioners and after due screening, has forwarded the name of the petitioners to the commission for its recommendation. That the Commission under bona fide impression that the cases of the petitioners have been duly examined by a properly constituted Screening committee examined the papers forwarded by the University for granting its approval for their promotion and recommended the names of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Readers. That subsequently when the commission was examining the papers of other lecturers of the same University the Commission came to know that the Screening Committee constituted by the university were not properly constituted Screening Committee, because in the aforesaid screening committee the University has shown the name of some of the persons as experts, appointed by the vice-Chancellor though they were not from the panel prepared by the Bihar Inter-University Board. That since the experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor were not from the panel prepared by the Bihar Inter-Uniyersity Board they cannot be treated as experts in absence of expert from the said panel the so-called screening committee were not duly constituted according to law. That on examination the commission found that in cases of the petitioners one expert was not even present in the meeting of the Screening Committee. That as soon as the Commission came to know about the aforesaid facts the Commission realised that its earlier recommendations were based on reports of Committee which cannot be treated as screening committee, hence decided to rectify its recommendation based on documents which cannot be treated as reports of Screening Committee and accordingly the commission rectified its mistake and communicated the same to the University concerned. That the Commission has not issued its earlier decision but it has simply rectified its mistake. That the Commission simply examines the papers duly forwarded by the University and the Commission used to correspond with the University hence there is no provision under which the commission will hear the petitioners even for rectifying its mistake. That however, promotion granted to the petitioners without the recommendation of duly constituted Screening Committee, itself is not legal hence, even if the Commission has not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners then its decision cannot be set aside. A writ cannot be issued for quashing even an illegal order for restoring another illegal order. "