Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 821 (PAT)

Raj Mangal Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-03

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the writ petition, enclosures attached thereto and the Act, namely, Nalanda Open University Act, 1989, as produced by the counsel for the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that Nalanda Open University was established by the State initially vide ordinance of U.G.C. (followed by Act), which came into existence since then. The petitioner was functioning as Principal in a Degree College in Bihar University and worked as Pro-Vice Chancellor in L.N. Mithila University and then as Pro-Vice Chancellor of Bhagalpur University, retired on 31st January, 1989. After his retirement, he was appointed as Pro-Vice Chancellor, Nalanda Open University by the order of the Chancellor dated 18th January, 1990 (Annexure-1). In pursuance of said order, the petitioner joined the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University on 23rd January, 1990 and continued till 20th December, 1990. 4. In the meantime, the Deputy Secretary to the Governor (Chancellor), vide letter dated 12th February, 1990 requested the State (Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department) to send terms and conditions of appointment of petitioner. Subsequently, the Govt. of Bihar took decision and communicated vide letter dated 26th March, 1990 showing the terms and conditions of Pro-Vice Chancellor in the Universities of the State. The petitioner subsequently resigned on personal ground on 20th December, 1990, but having not paid salary made representation before the Chancellor. 5. By impugned order dated 19th January, 1998, the Chancellor of the University rejected the claim of petitioner on the ground that the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University was not created and no budget allocation was made. It was further stated that the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that he worked as Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University. 6. From section 13, it will be evident that a post of Pro-Vice Chancellor stood created in terms with the Act, 1988, which is to be appointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State and the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Pro-Vice Chancellor is to hold office on such condition, as may be determined by the Chancellor in consultation with the State for a period not exceeding three years. In view of the matter the ground shown that no post of Pro-Vice Chancellor was created, cannot be held to be legal and the order to that extent is declared to be illegal. 7. In view of the matter the ground shown that no post of Pro-Vice Chancellor was created, cannot be held to be legal and the order to that extent is declared to be illegal. 7. So far as terms and conditions are concerned, it is the Chancellor to determine in consultation with the State. If no decision is taken by the Chancellor relating to the terms and conditions in spite of State Governments letter dated 26th March, 1990, the petitioner cannot suffer for such laches on the part of the Chancellor. 8. It has not been disputed by the Respondents that the petitioner joined the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor on 22rd January, 1990. Thereafter, whether any work was entrusted or not, he having attended the office, he will be deemed to have worked during the period. If no budgetary provision has been made by the State allocating fund for payment in favour of Pro-Vice Chancellor, in fact, the Chancellor should have requested the State to make budgetary provision and release of fund for payment in favour of incumbent. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19th January, 1998 being illegal, I set aside the same and remit the matter to the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar to redetermine the question relating to payment of salary in favour of petitioner. Admittedly amount, if any due, be paid, on an early date, preferably within six months. 10. It is needless to say that the State authorities are to allocate fund for payment in favour of petitioner, if such request is made by the Chancellor. 11. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.