RAJU MAHATO Vs. BIRSA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINING public injury caused by the alleged illegal appointments made by the respondent -Birsa Agricultural University, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs in this writ application in the name of public interest : - -

(2.) THE petitioner has Introduced himself as an ex -member of the Board of Management of the University and a public spirited person. According to the petitioner, the respondent -University was earlier known as Rejendra Agricultural University and was created under the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971. Under the said Act, a statute was framed which governed the service condition and procedure for appointments and other functions of the University. Subsequently, Bihar Agricultural University Act, came into force in the year 1988 which repealed the other Acts such as Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1971; Birsa Agricultural University Act, 1981 etc. After the enactment of Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1988, previous statutes of the University have been revoked and there is no statute to govern the affairs of the University. Even in absence thereof, the respondent -University has been making appointments. The respondent -University is bound to follow the reservation policy of the State in the process of appointment and for that purpose to specify the reservation roster in the advertisement for appointments on the vacant posts. But, the respondent -University, contrary to that, advertised various posts for the purpose of appointments in its advertisement dated 2.4.2004, only mentioning that the reservation roster will be followed as per the order of State Government by Resolution No. 7 ARRO(T)/ 33/2002/6191/RAN, dated 9.11.2002, but without specifying as to whether single post of the University Professor -cum -Chief Scientist of various departments and Chief Scientist -cum - University Professor of various departments would be reserved under the reservation roster and if so, for what category. The respondents have also relaxed the eligibility criteria on their own prescribing minimum educational qualification, a doctorate degree, in the subject concerned/allied discipline whereas in the earlier statute, the minimum required qualification for the concerned post was a doctorate degree in the concerned subject only and no person having doctorate degree in the allied subject was eligible for the post. Petitioner alleged that the respondent, on the one hand have not framed any statute for the proper functioning of the University including for appointments and for laying down the service condition and on the other hand, have, of their own, fixed the educational qualification for the appointment of University Professor -cum -Chief Scientist and Chief Scientist -cum -University. Professor of various departments. Details of the reservation roster on the advertised post have not been published. The impugned advertisement is vague and illegal. In absence of the statute, various manipulations have been done by the respondent -University for the purpose of making appointment on the post of Director of Research. The director (Research) should be the Chairman of the Selection Committee, but instead, the Dean (Agriculture) was made the Chairman of the Committee. The Board of Management of the respondent -University has not approved the names of various experts of the Selection Committee who have been included by the Vice Chancellor. The respondent -University has made a number of illegal appointments. 53+13 Assistants have been appointed without holding any written test or typing test, which were mandatory, under the old statute. The petitioner supplemented his grievances by way of supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, that the respondent -University is governed by the guidelines of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ICAR) and the Chief Secretaries of all the States, by letter dated 3.3.1999, have been directed to ensure that the State Agricultural University is abiding by the conditions laid down by the ICAR. All the State Agricultural Universities have to abide by the conditions regarding the minimum qualification for teachers of University and Colleges and to take measures for maintaining standards: as contained in letter dated 24.12.1998 issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). According to the said letter, the Vice Chancellor is to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee for the appointments on the post of University Lecturer which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor. Similarly, for the post of Reader, appointment is to be made on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selection by the duly constituted selection committee to be set up under the Statute/Ordinances of the concerned University. Such Committee should consist of a minimum of three experts, the Head of the concerned Department and the Principal of the concerned College. For the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the respondent -University constituted the Selection Committee of which the Acting Dean of the concerned factually was made the Chairman in violation of the guidelines of the ICAR and the letter of the UGC dated 24.12.1998. All the appointments, thus, made are liable to be held illegal and the said appointments cannot be given effect to. Showing his concern, the petitioner has stated that the ICAR is the funding agency of the respondent -University and if the guidelines of the ICAR are not followed, all the financial assistance and grant -in -aid to the University may be withdrawn affecting the interests of University, which is one of the most prestigious institutions in the State. It was further stated that the Commissioner -cum -Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, by a letter dated 12.12.2002, informed the Accountant General that the State Government has decided to implement the guidelines prescribed by ICAR on the condition that the concerned Agricultural University shall make relevant changes in their statute and regulations. According to the petitioner, for the post of Assistant Professor, as per the guidelines of the UGC the candidates have to qualify the NET for lecturers conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar post of agriculture. The respondents have relaxed the pre -condition of five years experience in teaching and research for the post of Assistant Professor and have also accepted the candidates having qualification of allied subjects contrary to the UGC guidelines. For the post of University Professor, the candidate should be an eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in post graduate teaching and/or experience in research at the University National Level Institutions including experience of guiding research at doctoral level or an outstanding scholar with established reputation and in exceptional cases should have teaching experience of 15 years of UG standard research experience, but the same has not been followed and appointments are being made giving relaxation in the prescribed qualification. It has been stated that the Jharkhand Agricultural University Act, provides for temporary appointment under Section 22(10) of the said Act, and the Vice Chancellor may appoint, under intimation of management, any suitable person, temporarily for a period not exceeding six months against a vacancy as an officer of a University referred to in Clause (3) to (7) of Sec.19.

(3.) THE petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, almost repeating and reiterating the statements made in the writ petition and additionally denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. Though the rejoinder to the counter affidavit has consumed more pages that the original writ petition, yet there is nothing new and worth quoting, and no detail discussion of the same is required.