PARMANAND PRASAD Vs. BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner primarily for quashing a communication dated 2-5-1986 (Annexure-3) issued by the Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission) to the Secretary, Governing Body, Jamalpur Evening College, Jamalpur, Munger, purporting to give permanent concurrence to the promotion of Sri Awani Kumar Bhushan, respondent No. 6, with effect from 18-6-1971. According to the petitioner the aforesaid decision communicated by the Commission is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction.

(2.) According to the petitioner he was Acting Principal of the said College from 21-6-1980 to 30-6-1985. It is further claimed that he was appointed as Principal of that College by the Ad hoc committee with effect from 1-9-1985. As the petitioner continued as the acting and the regular Principal of the College in question for the period aforesaid there was no occasion to issue the impugned communication by the Commission. It was pointed out that at no stage any such concurrence was sought for by the Governing Body or Ad hoc Committee of the College in question from the Commission.

(3.) In respect of respondent No. 6 it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was Professor Incharge of the College in the year 1976 when the Governing Body suspended him and later removed him from the said post for irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. However, even according to the petitioner respondent No. 6 was reinstated in the year 1978. Thereafter, an advertisement was published on 21-8-1979 in the daily newspaper inviting applications for appointment to the post of the Principal of the College aforesaid, which was an affiliated College at that time. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 and others applied for the post. The University Service Commission, which under the relevant provisions was to hold interview, held interview of the candidates, but neither the name of the petitioner nor of respondent No. 6 was recommended for the appointment the Principal of the College. The person whose name was recommended also could not be appointed and ultimately the recommendation of the Commission lapsed. As already stated above, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as Professor Incharge and acted as Principal of the College between 21-6-1980 and 30-6-1985. He has also acted as such later, as already mentioned above. The petitioner claims that the Ad hoc Committee appointed him as the Principal with effect from 1-9-85 and the said decision was communicated by a letter dated 17-4-1986 (Annexure-2).