Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 585 (PAT)

Surjit Singh v. State Of Bihar

1995-11-01

S.K.HOMCHAUDHURI

body1995
Judgment S. K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. -the facts and law points involved in both petitions being similar and identical, the petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners case is that he is m. A. both in History and Political Science and Ph. D. and D. Litt. and that originally on and from 5.2.1970 he was appointed as lecturer in History in Sri Guru Govind Singh college, Patna City. Thereafter, he was appiointed to the first sanctioned post as lecturer in Policital Science in the said College by the governing body of the College by the order dated 24.8.1979. The order of the said appointment was approved on 26.11.1979 by the Prabhandak Committee, sri Takht Harmandir Ji, Patna City, which managed the College. Sri Guru Govind singh College, Patna City, hereinafter mentioned as the College was a minority institution and was establised by the Sikh community and the same was managed by the Prabhandak Committee, Sri Takht Harmandir Ji, patna city. The petitioner was declared Head of the Department of Political Science by the governing Body of the college in its meeting dated 27.4.1980, which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 5.5.1980, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. In the years 1983 and 1986, in absence of the principal, the petitioner was made Professor-in-charge of the college and was paid salary by the Prabhandak Committee of Sri takht Harmandir Ji, Patna city, time to time. The petitioner was also made the Head Examiner of Political science by the Magadh university. The petitioners further case is that the college was declared constitutent College of the Magadh University on 12.6.1986 and the administration thereof was taken over by the Magadh University. After the College was made constitutent unit of the Magadh university, the Screening Committee was appointed to furnish the list of teaching staff of the College, but the petitioners name was wilfully omitted in the said list and consequently the petitioner was not absorbed in the College. The petitioner, thereafter, made an appeal before the Chancellor of magadh University and the Chancellor, thereafter, appointed an Enquiry Committee to make enquiry in this regard and to admil its report. The petitioner, thereafter, made an appeal before the Chancellor of magadh University and the Chancellor, thereafter, appointed an Enquiry Committee to make enquiry in this regard and to admil its report. Besides the case of the petitioner, the said Enquiry Committee also enquired the identical case of Sri Lal Mohan upadhaya and of Sri Tarini Prasad, that they had been working as Lecturer in Hindi and in English, respectively, in the College, but their names were arbitrarily dropped and consequently they were not absorbed. The enquiry Committee after consideration of the materials placed before it submitted report on 28.7.1988. In the report, the Enquiry Committee held : "after going through the relevan papers as mentioned above we are left with no doubt that Dr. Surjit Singh, Lal mohar Upadhaya and Tarini Prasad are permanent teachers of S. G. G. S. College. " The Committee made the following recommendations : "1. Steps should be taken to inform the proper aulhority to insert their names at proper place in the list of the teachers of S. G. G. S. College Patna city.2. The Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee of Takhat Harimandirji of Patna saheb should be persuaded through Dr. Surjit Singh to hand over the origina proceeding book and cash book for the period of January 1979 to June 1980 to magadh University, Bodh Gaya. " 3. After the report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee appointed by the chancellor, the Registrar of the Magadh university by the letter dated 19.11.1989 communicated the order of the Vice-Chancellor as follows : - "i am directed to say that the Vicechancellor hes been pleased to allow provisional payment of salary to the following teachers of your College under normal rules for payment of salary and performance of duty.1. Sri Lal Mohar Upadhaya, Deptt. of hindi 2. Sri Tarini Prasad, Deptt. of English further I am directed to inform you that the Vice-Chancellor has also been pleased to allow provisional payment to dr. Surjit Singh, Deptt. of Political science but only after the production of original proceeding book in M. U. Office by Dr. Surjit Singh for the period of january 1979 to June 1980 which is lying with him. Salary will be paid to above teachers purely on provisional basis subject to the approval of State Government i. e. this will continue till such time that the Govt. Surjit Singh for the period of january 1979 to June 1980 which is lying with him. Salary will be paid to above teachers purely on provisional basis subject to the approval of State Government i. e. this will continue till such time that the Govt. finally decide the list of validly appointed teachers and that one of those persons will have claim to be paid thereafter if any name is not being cleared by the government. Salary will be paid at the minimum scale of pay plus admission allowances. " In the meantime, Government of Bihar, education Department, by letter no.14/p2044/87-181/c dated 18.12.1989 intimated the list of teaching staff who are retained and absorbed in the College. In the said letter, it was further communicated that the cases of the petitioner as well as the other teachers are under consideration. The petitioner after receipt of the letter dated 19.11.1989, intimated the University that the original proceeding books of the governing Body for the period 1979-80 was not lying with him but was lying with the prabhandak Committee of Sri Takht Harmandir Ji, patna city and as such, he was not in a position to produce the proceeding book for the period 1979-80. However, the petitioner has neither been paid his salary nor he has been allowed to hold classes in the College. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-University submits that the petitioner having not produced the proceeding book of the year 1979-80, he could not be paid his salary. Learned counsel for the respondent-University further submits that from the letter dated 18.12.1989, it is apparent that the petitioners case was under active consideration of the Government; but the government has not yet communicated its final decision in the matter and that unless the Government approves the petitioners absorption, the University cannot pass any order for absorption and payment of his salary. The learned Government Advocate, however, submits that the petitoner was appointed on 24.8.1979 against the first sanctioned post of lecturer in Political Science by the Governing Body of the College, which was not legally constituted; inasmuch as the University did not approve its constitution and that the appointment was made ignoring the fact that one Amarendra sahay had been working in the said post since 7.9.1960. The petitioner was also declared the Head of the Department of political Science arbitrarily with effect from 27.4.1980 ignoring the claim of Amarendra sahay, who had been working there, for a long time. The constitution of that Governing Body of the College having been disapproved by the University, the said governing Body ceased to function and a new Governing Body was constituted, which was approved by the University. Learned government Advocate further submits that as regards strength of teaching staff and other staff of the College, the Government received different reports from time to time and in view of discrepancies in the reports, the whole matter is entrusted to the Department of Vigilance for investigation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having submitted that he does not seek relief against Respondents no.6 to 10, Dr. Jha, learned counsel for Respondents no.6 to 10 has simply drawn my attention to certain facts for proper decision without contesting the relief prayed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the University does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was also made Head Examiner in Political Science by the University. It is also not the case of the respondents that the report of the enquiry Committee submitted by the Chancellor has not been accepted. 7. From the report of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Chancellor, a copy of which is annexed to the petition, it appears that the petitioner submitted the following documents in support of his case :- "1. Appointment letter as lecturer in history on 5.2.1970 (P8/c)2. Appointment as lecturer in Pol. Sc. on permanent basis dated 24.8.1979.3. Recognition as Head of the Deptt. of Pol. Sc. dated 27.4.1980.4. Proof of receiving payment from the College (P16/c) period of payment from March 79 to Jan.84.5. Appointment as Professor Incharge of the college dated 28.1.1986.6. Testimonial from General Secretary prabhandak Committee dated 15.7.1986 that he is permanent teacher (P 19 ).7. Extract of the Proceeding of G. B. meeting dated 12.8.1979 by which his services were made permanent (P 59 to 63) . 8 A number of appointment letters from Magadh University as examiner. "8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other incumbents, namely, Lal Mohar Upadhaya of Hindi department and Tarini Prasad of English department are paid monthly salary and are working in the College, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 8 A number of appointment letters from Magadh University as examiner. "8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other incumbents, namely, Lal Mohar Upadhaya of Hindi department and Tarini Prasad of English department are paid monthly salary and are working in the College, has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is also not the case of the respondents that the governing body which was subsequently approved by the University, reversed the decision of the earlier governing body, by which the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer and subsequently as head of the Department in Political Science in the College. It is also not denied by the respondents that the petitioner was adpointed some time as Professor-in-charge of the College during the absence of the principal and he was paid his salary by the governing Body oefore the College was taken over and made constituent unit of the university. It passes ones comprehension as to why no decision has yet been taken for absorption of the petitioner in the College on the basis of the finding and recommendation of the Enquiry Committee, appointed by the Chancellor. The petitioner having intimated that original proceeding book for the period from 1979 to June, 1980, was not available with him and was lying with the Secretary of the Prabhandak Committee of Sri Takht Harmandir Ji, denial of payment of salary payable to the pet-itioner as per the order dated 19.11/989, is arbitrary and unjust, particularly, when other incumbents, namely, Dr. Lal Mchar Upadhaya and Tarini prasad of the Department of Hindi, who were similarly placed, are being paid monthly salary and allowed to work in the College . 9 For the reasons stated above, I allow the petitions and direct the Respondents to take final decision in the light of the finding of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the chancellor which lound that the petitioner was working as a permanent teacher in the political Science Department of the College prior to taking over the College as constituent unit of the university. The final decision should be taken expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The final decision should be taken expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be allowed to join as teacher in the Department of political Science in the College within a period of one month and shall be paid his salary in terms of the order dated 19.11.1979. I make no order as to costs.