SUDHA RANI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CWJC No. 8090 of 2007 was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30.7.2007 by this Court.

(2.) THE dispute related to extension of age of superannuation of the teachers and staff of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies at Patna. In the said order, this Court noticed with anguish as to how the Board of Control of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies is flouting the statutory obligation cast on it to meet every three months at least and take decisions amenable to the Board of Control. The result of that empass is that though as per the University Grants Commission Guidelines, the age of superannuation of the teachers of University has already been extended to 62 years by the State Government, the teachers of A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies are awaiting decision of the Board of Control in this matter because Board of Control has not met since May, 2006 that is for almost one and half years. The statute requires the Board to meet at least once in every three months. In those circumstances, even though the Board of Conrol did take up the matter on the 6th of May, 2006 but shelved for absence of any guideline in this regard. This Court, having held that it was for the Board of Control to amend service conditions, directed by the aforesaid judgment and order that the Board of Control of the Institute would take a decision in his regard preferably within forty five days on production of copy of this order before the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar and the Director of the Institute. This order was passed on the 30th of July, 2007. The order, thus, had to be complied with by about 15th of September, 2007. On 12th of September 2007, the present MJC application for modification of the said order was filed on behalf of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies. It prayed for extending the period of forty five days by four months. The plea was that the Board of Control has not been constituted. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the writ petitioner stated that the Board of Control is to be constituted by twelve members as per Section 5 of the Anugragh Narain Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act, 1964. None of the twelve members are to be elected. All the members are to be nominated and/or appointed. Ten, out of twelve, the nomination has to come from the State University or the State Government. In the rejoinder, it is further stated that seven members are already on the Board. They are Chairman as nominated by the State Government, Vice Chancellor of the Patna University, two representatives of ICSSR, New Delhi, Director of the Institute, Secretary to the Government in the Department of Human Resources Development and the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Finance. Therefore, out of twelve, seven are there and available. The five who are not yet been nominated are one Vice Chancellor from amongst Universities of Bihar other than Patna University who is to be appointed by the State Government, another is a representative from the University Grants Commission to be nominated by the Chairman of the Commission. Two persons of eminence again to be nominated by the State Government in consultation with the Chairman and one faculty representative of the rank of Professor to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the Professors of the Institute itself. From this, it would be seen that barring one representative of the UGC, the rest are to be nominated by the State Government is in deep slumber and needs to be woken up and is to be made alive of its statutory obligation by this Court time and again. This is pathetic. A reference to the said Act would also show that a duty is cast on the Board to meet at least once in three months. Again, the State Government and the Board of Control of the Institute wishes to forget this statutory obligation for reasons best known to them. The regulations, as framed by the Board of Control of the Institute, again emphasized this fact but again they forget their duty. The regulations of the Institute provides that five members of the Board of Control present in person shall constitute a corum at any meeting of the Board. From this, it is clear that not more than five persons are required to be present for the Board to meet and take decisions which decisions are to be taken by majority. As noticed above, Board has the statutory authority to amend the service conditions which includes the age of superannuation.

(3.) I , therefore, hold that there is no valid and bona fide reason for not holding the meeting of the Board of Control within the time specified by this Court and the prayer for granting more time is only a pretence of an excuse not to take a decision. The effect is that in the meantime employees who could get an extension of service if that was accepted by the Board of Control as it has been accepted by the Universities and State Government are left to retire and, thus, their service would stand terminated much before the others as and when the decision is taken. In my view, the State Government and the Board of Control lacks total sensitivity to these humane issue.