Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 356 (PAT)

Ramesh Chandra Prasad And Another v. Chancellor

2001-04-19

NARAYAN ROY

body2001
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. I have heard Counsel for the parties in all these writ applications. 2. In these writ applications, common impugned order of the Chancellor, Patna University, issued vide No. RU-65/98-64/GS dated 8-4-2000 is under challenge, therefore, these writ applications have been heard together and are being dispose of by this common order. 3. It appears that in the cases of the petitioner of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2969 of 2001 and the petitioners of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12405 of 2001, a notification was issued by the Patna University vide notification, contained in memo No. G/163 dated 31-3-2000 in the light of order dated 30th March, 2000 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10671 of 1999 as well as in the light of the resolution of syndicate of Patna University dated 29-7-1999 accepting the notification of the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, regarding shifting/revision of the date of promotion of these petitioners and similarly situated teachers to the post of University Professor granting promotion to them to the post of University Professor with effect from the respective dates shown in the notification. 4. So far as the case of the petitioner of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11790 of 2000 is concerned, it appears that his name was left out in the notification dated 31-3-2000 and the case of this petitioner was to be placed before the syndicate of the Patna University for its approval on 8-4-2000 extending the benefit given to the teachers mentioned in the notification dated 31-3-2000, but no decision could be taken on account of the impugned notification dated 8-4-2000, issued by the Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 5. The notification dated 31-3-2000, as referred to above, however, could not be given effect to nor the syndicate could take decision on 8-4-2000, pursuant to the impugned notification dated 8-4-2000, as referred to above, issued by the Chancellor, Patna University, whereby and whereunder the following directions were issued by the Chancellor: In the given circumstances, Hon ble Chancellor is pleased to direct that no further action should be taken as a follow-up after the notifications stated to have been issued on 31-3-2000 and further that the agenda items dealing with promotions of teachers to the posts of University Professors should be stayed till further orders. As desired by Hon ble Chancellor, you may kindly meet the Hon ble Chancellor on 13-4-2000 for which time will be fixed later. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the statutes framed under the Patna University Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act") do not confer any power upon the Chancellor to stay the proceedings or orders of the University, and, therefore, the impugned order of stay of the proceedings/ orders of the University could not have been passed by the Chancellor and the order impugned, in that view of the matter, is wholly without jurisdiction. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed in the case of Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba Ansariv, The Chancellor and Ors. 1996 (2) PUR, 488. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Chancellor, wherein it is precisely stated that by the impugned notification, the authorities of the Patna University have been asked not to issue further notification as per agenda unless verification and scrutiny are made by the office of the Chancellor, and, therefore, the impugned notification should not be termed as an order of stay of the further proceeding of the University. 8. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Senior Counsel for the Chancellor, submitted that the Chancellor has jurisdiction to scrutinise the proceedings/orders of the University and has the ultimate power to annul any proceeding or orders of the University which are not consistent with the Statutes of the University or for which there are not sufficient reasons, and, therefore, the impugned notification, issued by the Chancellor of Patna University is well sustainable in law. 9. The question now has fallen for consideration in these applications is as to whether the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, has jurisdiction to stay the proceedings/ orders of the University. 10. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act appears to be the enabling provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Chancellor to annul any proceeding or orders of the University. Sub-sec. 9. The question now has fallen for consideration in these applications is as to whether the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, has jurisdiction to stay the proceedings/ orders of the University. 10. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act appears to be the enabling provision conferring jurisdiction upon the Chancellor to annul any proceeding or orders of the University. Sub-sec. 4 of Sec. 10 of the Act reads as follows: The Chancellor may by order in writing annul any proceeding or orders of the University, which are not consistent with this Act, statutes, Ordinance or regulation or for which there are not sufficient reasons; Provided that before issuing any such order or directives, he shall call upon the University to show cause within the period specified by him why such order or directive should not be issued and if any cause is shown within the specified period, he shall consider the same." 11 On reading of Sec. 10 of the Act as a whole, it would appear that the Chancellor of the Tatna University has no jurisdiction in specific terms to stay the proceeding or orders of the University, rather by virtue of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act, the Chancellor has got jurisdiction to annul the proceeding/orders of the University if the same are not consistent with this Act, statutes, Ordinance or regulation of the University or for which there are not sufficient reasons. This power is, however, exercisable subject to the proviso to Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act, which enables the Chancellor before issuing such order or direction to call upon the University to show cause within the period specified. On reading of Sub-sec. (4) and its proviso of Sec. 10 of the Act, it appears to me that the Chancellor before taking any decision for annulling any proceeding or orders of the University is, required to scrutinise the matters and is also required to call upon the University to show sufficient cause within specified period in support of its case. (4) and its proviso of Sec. 10 of the Act, it appears to me that the Chancellor before taking any decision for annulling any proceeding or orders of the University is, required to scrutinise the matters and is also required to call upon the University to show sufficient cause within specified period in support of its case. By deeming fiction of this provision, the Chancellor of Patna University has jurisdiction to keep the proceeding or orders of the University in abeyance for a specified period till any final decision is taken for annulling any proceeding or orders of the University, but, in no case, Sec. 10(4) of the Act confers any power upon the Chancellor to stay the proceeding/orders of the University for an indefinite period. 12. It does not appear from the order impugned that the stay order was passed for annulling any order or proceeding of the University, which was not in conformity with the Act, statutes, Ordinance or the regulation of the University. It is also not manifest from the order impugned that any specified period has been given to the University to explain justifying its action. Therefore, the condition precedent, as put forth in proviso to Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act, on the basis of which the Chancellor can assume jurisdiction and pass an order under Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 10 of the Act, is lacking in the impugned order. It is further manifest from the order impugned that the Chancellor has directed that no further action should be taken as a follow-up after the notification, issued on 31-3-2000 and further that the agenda item dealing with promotions of the teachers to the post of University Professors be stayed till further orders. The order impugned, in my opinion, therefore, does not appear to be in consonance with Sub-sec. (4) of Section 10 of the Act, and, therefore, the purported action of the Chancellor by the impugned notification cannot be said to be an order keeping the proceeding/orders of the University in abeyance for a specified period for annulling the proceeding/orders of the University. 13. (4) of Section 10 of the Act, and, therefore, the purported action of the Chancellor by the impugned notification cannot be said to be an order keeping the proceeding/orders of the University in abeyance for a specified period for annulling the proceeding/orders of the University. 13. It is informed at the Bar that till date the Chancellor has not taken any final decision in the matter and the notification dated 31-3-2000, issued by the University is still hanging in fire depriving the petitioners of the benefits, which could have accrued to them by virtue of notification dated 31-3-2000. In the case of Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba Ansari (supra), this Court faced with the similar situation, has held that although the Chancellor is empowered under Sec. 9(4) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 to annul any order or proceeding, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the University Act, statutes, or regulation, as the case may be, the failure of the Chancellor to pass final orders for more than four years was not justifiable. 14. Having heard Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the impugned order passed by the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, is not in conformity with Sec. 10(4) of the Act, and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law. 15. In the result, these applications are allowed and the impugned notification of these writ applications dated 8-4-2000 is hereby quashed. 16. No order as to costs.