JAGATMOHAN PRASAD Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BHAGALPUR (BY ITS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner held a permanent post in the T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur, and he was head of the department of Philosophy in the college. On 9 December 1963, he was transferred from the college to the post -graduate department of the Bhagalpur University and was made head of the department on 13 October 1965. He is possessed of requisite qualifications to be appointed a Reader as provided in the statutes of the university. His grievance is that under the provisions of Article 3(4)(c)(ii) of Chap. XV -A of the statutes he should have been promoted to the post of a Reader, but the university got the post advertised through the Bihar Public Service Commission. The Commission by its letter dated 4 April 1956, recommended the names of two other persons for the post of Reader in Philosophy. Hence the petitioner has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and restraining the opposite party from giving effect to its recommendation and directing the respondents to act in accordance with the provisions of the statutes in the matter of appointment.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the Vice -Chancellor should have recommended the name of the petitioner to be promoted to the post of Reader under Article 3(4)(c)(ii) of Chap. XV -A of the statutes as he was possessed of requisite qualifications for the post and as he was also the head of the postgraduate department in Philosophy. It is not disputed before us that if the post of a Reader was to be filled up by promotion, the petitioner by virtue of his seniority and qualifications would have been eligible to the post, but Dr. B.R. Mishra, the then Vice -Chancellor, had made a proposal to the Chancellor that the post of a Reader in Philosophy should be filled by direct recruitment and the Chancellor, by his memorandum No. BHU -93/63 -63 -G.S. (1) Patna, 9 January 1964, gave his approval to it. It is true that Dr. Dinkar requested the Chancellor by his letter dated 28 July 1964, for a reconsideration of his decision regarding the manner of filling up the post of Readers in Philosophy, Physics and History, but the Chancellor declined to do so and in pursuance thereof the post was advertised through the Public Service Commission. The question arises whether the statute gives him a right to be appointed as a Reader in the subject. We have just now delivered judgment in Dr. Rudra Nath Thakur v. Chancellor of Bhagalpur University (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 383 of 1966) where a similar question arose for consideration. We held on a construction of Article 3(4)(c)(ii) of Chap. XV -A of the Bhagalpur University Statutes that it is for the Vice -chancellor to decide whether the post of a Reader is to be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment and the seniormost teacher possessing requisite qualifications to hold the post cannot have any justiciable right to be appointed as a Reader. In view of the decision in that case, the petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that in many subjects like Hindi, Chemistry, Physics, Botany and Zoology, etc., the posts were directed to be filled by promotion and as such discriminatory treatment was shown against him. It is difficult for me to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Discrimination will be unfair only amongst those persons who are placed in similar' circumstances. The subjects referred to are quite different and enough materials have not been placed before us to show that the promotees for the posts of readership in those subjects were placed in circumstances similar to those of the petitioner. In such circumstances the action of the university could not be characterized as discriminatory.