BRAJ MOHAN PRASASD MEHTA Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Ranchi University as contained in the letter of its Register dated 27,4.95 by which, in the words of the petitioner, "respondent No. 4 has been made Principal Incharge of Chotanagpur Law College, Ranchi" (hereinafter called 'the College'). The petitioner also seeks quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 4 Rakesh Kumar: Verma as Lecturer in the College Vide letter dated 31.12.82 Tiue copies of the aforesaid letter have been marked Annexures-9 and 3, respectively, to the writ petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner may be set as follows. The petitioner applied for the post of par-time Lecturer, in the College pursuant to advertisement issued by the University Service Commission. After interview etc. his name was recommended by the Commission under its letter dated 19.8.69 and in course of time he was appointed as a part-time Lecturer by the Governing Body of the College on 2.3.70. As against the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation of the Commission, respondent No. 4 was appointed without any advertisement and selection process, by the Secretary of the College on 31.8.82. As the appointment of respondent No. 4 and others was violative of the provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Universities Act') and the Statutes framed thereunder, they were terminated by the Governing Body on 13.3.95. An advertisement was thereafter published inviting applications for appointment to various posts including those of principal, Vice-Principal, Lecturer (whole time) and part-time Lecturer on 14.3.95. the petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement for the post of Principal. Respondent No. 4 also applied for the post of Lecturer. While respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lecturer by order as contained in Annexure-6 dated 22.3.95, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Principal by order as contained in Annexure-7 on the same day. By the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9, however, the University has purported to 'appoint' respondent No. 4 as the Principal.

(3.) It may be stated that it is not the case of the respondents that respondent No. 4 has been appointed to the post of Principal. Annexure-9 which is a communication from the Registrar of the University to the Principal Incharge of the College, merely conveys the decision of the University regarding formation of the Governing Body for the College consequent upon the grant of affiliation on 25.4.95. It may also be stated here that the affiliation earlier granted to the College had lapsed on 21.5.92. The communication (Annexure-9) cannot be read as order of appointment although it does describe him as the Principal Incharge. But as would be evident from paragraph-2 of the Communication, he has been recognised as the Principal Incharge being "senior most qualified full time teacher having administrative experience". In other words, even the communication describes his substantive status as that of a full time Lecturer and not Principal, he has been recognised as the Principal Incharge (really Professor Incharge) for the purpose of constitution of the Governing Body inasmuch as Principal of the College is an ex officio member of the Governing Body.