MAHENDRA PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed a lecturer in Economics on 19.1.1975 by the Governing Body of Millat College, Parsa. According to him, he joined that post as Lecturer in the Department of Economics on 23.11.1975. He was appointed on the first sanctioned post. He was only a graduate at the time of his appointment. He did not possess a Postgraduate Degree at all; leave alone, a Postgraduate Degree with high second class. On 24.2.1977, he got a Master 'sdegree, not in high second class, but in second class. On 6.2.1978, the Governing Body of the College forwarded a proposal to the Bihar Universities Service Commission to give a concurrence for his temporary appointment. On 30.9.1978, concurrence for temporary appointment was given. According to the petitioner, the Chancellor wrote to the Vice -Chancellor of the Bhagal -pur University by communication dated 21.3.1983; approving the absorption of 20 temporary lecturers including the petitioner. On 19.8.1983, the Governing Body of the College confirmed the appointment of the petitioner.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was thus working in the College, the College became a constituent College with effect from 30.8.1988 There were other colleges also which acquired the states of constituent colleges. An inquiry was set up to decide who were the persons qualified to be appointed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 12.10.2001 above referred to, the petitioner was entitled to continue until a decision was taken by the Supreme Court based on the report to be submitted by Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal. Counsel referred to certain orders passed by a Single Judge of this Court permitting such continuance by accepting such an argument. But on scrutiny of those orders of the learned Single Judge, we find that those orders have not considered the effect of the inquiry made by the University, which it was entitled to do in terms of the second proviso to Section 4 (14) and Section 35 (3) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the finding therein that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as lecturer when he was appointed by the Governing Body of the private college. We are, therefore, not persuaded to follow the course adopted by two of the learned Single Judges of this Court relating to some persons similarly situated. After all, it is not as if a Division Bench, is bound by those orders as such. If we are persuaded otherwise, we are entitled to differ from them, though, normally, to maintain uniformity, we would have tried to adopt the (sic) that the same was permissible in law.