JADUNANDAN SAHAY Vs. CHANCELLOR, BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application by Dr. Jadunandan Sahay petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the resolution dated the 19th December, 1971 (Annexure 4) of the Syndicate of the Bihar University through the Vice-Chancellor of the said University (respondent No. 2) under which Dr. Taleshwar Sharma (respondent No. 4) has been appointed to the post of the University Professor in the Department of Chemistry at Muzaffarpur. In the application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the appointment of respondent No. 4 as contained in Annexure '4' to the writ application.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points involved in this application, it would be necessary to give certain facts. A temporary post of the University Professor in Chemistry was advertised by the Public Service Commission (respondent No. 3) on the 17th of March. 1971, in the Bihar Gazette (Part IX) at page 141 by advertisement No. 19/1971 and apart from other qualifications the minimum qualification for the said post was at least ten years' teaching experience in the Post-Graduate Department, as laid down under Article 3 (1) of the Bihar University Calendar (Volume 1) 1964. Statutes XV (hereinafter referred to as the "Statutes"). A relevant portion of the above Article of the Statutes has been made Annexure-1 to the writ application and an extract from the Bihar Gazette Advertising the post has also been made Annexure '2' to the application. In paragraph 3 of the application the petitioner has stated that he was already a Reader in Chemistry in the Bihar University posted in L. S. College. Muzaffarpur and he took his M.Sc. in Chemistry in 1944, from the Banaras Hindu University and obtained his Ph.D. also from this University in 1947 and ioined the Bihar Educational Service in the same year and thereafter the petitioner also obtained Ph.D. degree from the University of London in 1950, and has experience of teaching in Post-Graduate Classes for over sixteen years.

(3.) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 on the 2nd May, 1974. inter alia stating therein that respondent No. 4 had more than the requisite qualification justifying his appointment. A separate counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the 4th September, 1974, inter alia supporting the case of respondent No. 4 justifying his appointment. The petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on the 10th October, 1974 by way of reply to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4. On that very day the petitioner also filed a separate affidavit in reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 an affidavit was filed by way of rejoinder on the 28th February 1975 and lastly a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the 7th May. 1975, as mentioned earlier annexing a copy of the resignation of respondent No. 4 as Annexure-F.