SHARAT CHANDRA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that he has been authorized by Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate to appear and conduct arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to pay salary for the period he has actually worked together with interest. He further makes a prayer for quashing the order as contained in AnneXure -3 which was passed pursuant to the order of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5384 of 1998 (Annexure -1). It is evident upon reading the said order dated 7.9.1999 as contained in Annexure -1 that the Patna High Court noticed an appointment letter dated 8.8.1988 (Annexure -2/2 hereof), which is equivalent to Annexure -B appended to the counter affidavit. It is further evident upon perusal of the aforementioned appointment letter, that the petitioner had himself applied for being appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics before the Principle, Deoghar College subject to approval of the University. Annexure 'A ' appended to the Counter Affidavit is that application. The Patna High Court further took into consideration the fact that the appointment was on the temporary basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 700.00 per month and the payment was subject to approval of the University. It further took into consideration a letter of the University dated 9.4.1990 (Annexure 2/3 to this writ application) by which the Registrar of the said University wrote to all. Heads of the Departments and others including the Professors -in -Charge of constituent Colleges informing them that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, all ad -hoc teachers in service on February, 10, 1989 shall continue till selection was made by the University Service Commission and that they shall be paid in terms agreed for the period in which they have actually worked. It was further mentioned that only ad - hoc teachers contained in the list of ad -hoc teachers which was enclosed along with the letter should be allowed to continue and work till further orders. The name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 82 of that letter, which has been marked Annexure -2/3 (see running page 41). In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that on account of a voluntary application (Annexure 'A '), the then Professor -in -Charge ignored the rules and regulations, and without prior permission of the University, appointed the petitioner a Lecturer in the Mathematics on a fixed salary of Rs. 700.00 per month in anticipation of the approval of the University which was never granted. It is further stated that the Professor -in -Charge or the Principal of a College is not an authority to make such appointments and that no teacher could have been appointed without advertisement and following selection procedure.

(3.) IT was in this background that the Patna High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order of that writ petition by which the Vice Chancellor had held that nothing was payable to the petitioner till regular appointment was made. While doing so, the Patna High Court observed : - -