Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 507 (PAT)

Shivnandan Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2000-03-30

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner, a Demonstrator/Lab. Incharge of Dharm Samaj Sanskrit College, Muzaffarpur (College for short), whose case for regularisation of service having rejected by the State, vide, Memo No. 552 dated 11th September, 1998, has challenged the same in the present writ petition. 2. The College, in question, is a constituent College under the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga (University for short). It has an Ayurvedic Deptt. consisting of Sub-departments and Laboratories of its own. Apart from imparting teaching in Graduate standards, being affiliated with Central Council of Indian Medicine, it has six years B.A.M.S. course. The petitioner was engaged/appointed as Demonstrator/Lab. Incharge in the College Laboratories attached to the Ayurvedic Department in the consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- per month. The College authorities requested the State for regularisation of service of Demonstrators/Lab. Incharge, vide letter no. 1089 dated 29th July, 1988. The State of Bihar, in its turn, issued a letter no. 1148 dated 17th August, 1988 and asked the University to pay the scale of Graduate teacher (Rs. 850-1360) to the six working Demonstrators/Lab. Incharge. However, vide letter no. 621 dated 22nd May, 1989, it was decided by the State not to give effect to the earlier letter dated 17th August, 1988 for the present. Subsequently, the Vice Chancellor of the University while forwarded the list of Demonstrator/Lab. Incharge, vide letter no. 7494 dated 21st December, 1994 requested to create six posts of Demonstrators/Lab. Incharge. It was rejected by the State Government, vide Memo dated 12th August, 1996. At that stage, a number of Demonstrators/Lab. Incharge of the College (Shambhu Nath Jha and others) moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9917/96 and challenged the decision of the State dated 12th August, 1996. After taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the parties, the letter dated 12th August, 1996 was set aside and the case was remitted to the State to decide their cases in the light of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh, as reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 509 and the writ petition was disposed of on 4th August, 1997. 3. The State of Bihar thereafter rejected the claim, vide memo dated 11th September, 1998 (Annexure-13). 3. The State of Bihar thereafter rejected the claim, vide memo dated 11th September, 1998 (Annexure-13). It has been rightly observed by the State that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (supra) is applicable to the non-teaching employees and not to the teaching employees. 4. In the impugned order, as also the counter affidavit, specific plea has been taken that the posts of Demonstrators were teaching posts and were abolished, vide State Governments Memo No. 1216 dated 18th September, 1975, forwarded vide Memo No. 814 dated 13th March, 1976 and only those who were appointed prior to the same were allowed to continue. Thereby, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit, as Demonstrator/Lab. Incharge from the Full Bench decision and in view of abolition of post. 5. The counsel for the petitioner placed much reliance on decision of the State, communicated vide letter no. 1710 dated 17th August, 1979 to show that the posts of Lab. Incharge were created where the posts of Demonstrators were abolished. However, it has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for the University that the said letter dated 17th August, 1979 while made applicable to other Universities, was not given effect in respect of the University, in question. On the basis of aforesaid Government decision, the petitioners service cannot be regularised as Lab. Incharge. 6. The other submission was made on the basis of staffing pattern, as prescribed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, vide their letter no. 20-1/89 dated 1st December, 1989. Therein, for Ayurvedic College, strength of Lab. Technicians shown, departmentwise to enable the students to undergo Graduate Standard Ayurvedic course. The Respondents, while took plea that B.A.M.S. course is not being undertaken in the College, in question, the petitioner disputed the same. 7. From the supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner, it appears that the students were allowed to be admitted in B.A.M.S. course in the College upto the Session 1987-88, but such admission was stopped since the Academic Session 1988-89 because of prohibition imposed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi till permission granted by it. In view of such prohibition order, no admission taken since 1988- 89 session, but merely the students of the earlier batches have been allowed to appear and pass final examination, which they have completed in recent past upto 1991-92. 8. In view of such prohibition order, no admission taken since 1988- 89 session, but merely the students of the earlier batches have been allowed to appear and pass final examination, which they have completed in recent past upto 1991-92. 8. In view of aforesaid fact that the College is now not imparting teaching of B.A.M.S. course in view of prohibition of the Central Council of Indian Medicine, I find no reason to direct the respondents for regularisation of service of petitioner on the basis of staffing pattern. 9. However, this order will not stand in the way of the Respondents to take work from petitioner as Lab. Incharge, if required for any other faculty. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation.