Judgment 1. Six members of the teaching faculty of the Magadh University have preferred this writ petition to quash letter no. VC/Res/ 162/98, dated 3.7.1998 (Annexure-3), from the Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor, whereby the former has disagreed with the report of Shri R.C.P. Sinha to the effect thai respondent no. 5 (Dr. Baban Singh) was not qualified to be considered for the post of Principal and for a further direction to respondent no. 1 (the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar, Patna) to ensure implementation of his order, whereby he has accepted the report of Shri R.C.P. Sinha. 2. Petitioner no.1 herein had earlier preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3519 of 1995 with the prayer to quash the notification dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure-1 thereto), appointing a large number of persons as Principals in the Magadh University, in so far as the same related to Dr. Baban Singh (respondent no. 4 thereto, and respondent no. 5 herein) and to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Principal. By the said notification, a large number of members of the teaching faculty of the Magadh University had been appointed to the posts of Principal under Magadh University service, and Dr. Baban Singh was appointed as Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna. Dr. Baban Singh (respondent no.4 therein) had entered appearance and filed his counter affidavit, paragraph 21 of which is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. That it is submitted that there is no bar of appointment of an Advocate as Lecturer in an affiliated college. There is also no bar that a Lecturer of an affiliated college cannot practise in the Court. In this connection, it is stated that the respondent no.4 (Dr. Baban Singh) though appointed as Lecturer, never took any salary as a Lecturer from the college authorities, though performed his duties as Lecturer as simultaneously he was also practising during that period." (Emphasis added). C.W.J.C. No. 3519 of 1995 was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6.8.1996, which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. "Heard the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st April, 1994 issued under the signature of Registrar, Magadh University so far as it relates to respondent no. 4 who has been appointed as Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna. "Heard the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st April, 1994 issued under the signature of Registrar, Magadh University so far as it relates to respondent no. 4 who has been appointed as Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna. Admitted position is that the qualification and experience for appointment to the post of Principal is a First or High Second Class Masters degee or equivalent degree of a foreign University with consistently good academic record and not less than 12 years teaching experience as a lecturers in a degree College/University Department. It is asserted that respondent no. 4 has been appointed as Principal on the basis that he has teaching experience of 12 years in a degree College at Aurangabad whereas according to the petitioner respondent no. 4 enrolled as an advocate was practicing as an Advocate since 11th January, 1983 to 1987 when he surrendered his certificate. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent no.4 does not possess the requisite qualification he has been appointed as Principal of the College. He has no teaching experience of 12 years as Lecturer. From the averments made in the writ application it appears that already two memorials have been filed under registered post on 24.4.1994 and 24.5.1994 before the Chancellor. In view of the fact that the matter is already pending before the Chancellor and the allegation made by the petitioner requires and enquiry into the matter as to whether respondent no. 4 has requisite teaching experience of 12 years or not. I am of the view that the matter at first instance should be considered and disposed of by the Chancellor. Accordingly, the Chancellor is directed to consider and dispose of the memorials filed before him within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order. It will be open for the Chancellor to get the matter enquired into by any other agency before taking final decision on the point as to whether respondent no.4 has requisite teaching experience or not. To obviate the delay in the matter a copy of the memorial should also be filed along with the copy of this order before the Chancellor. With the aforesaid observation this application stands disposed of." 3. Respondent no. To obviate the delay in the matter a copy of the memorial should also be filed along with the copy of this order before the Chancellor. With the aforesaid observation this application stands disposed of." 3. Respondent no. 1 thereafter requested Shri R.C.P. Sinha, a retired Judge of this Court, to conduct an enquiry whether or not respondent no.5 herein (Dr. Baban Singh) had 12 years teaching experience before he was appointed as Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna. Shri Sinha issued notice to respondent no.5 herein who appeared before him and presented his case. On a consideration of the entire materials before him and the submissions of respondent no.5, he came to the conclusion that he was not qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Principal. The operative portion of the enquiry report dated 8.8.1997 is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. "The aforesaid case of Shri Baban Singh that he was practicing as well as teaching in R.LS.Y. College Aurangabad which has already been held to be factually wrong and as well as not permissible under law. After consideration of all the facts and circumstances the irresistible conclusion is that Shri Baban Singh did not have teaching experience of twelve years in a degree college which is mandatory either on 24.8.1992 the last date of reaching the application in the office of Bihar State University Commission, North S.K. Puri, Boring Road or on 20.4.1994, the date of his relieving from the R.L.S.Y. College Aurangabad." The report was accepted by respondent no.1 and consequently letter dated 26.9.1997 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1) was issued to respondent no. 3 (the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Gaya) that : "... the Hon ble Chancellor has been pleased to order that the Vice-Chancellor shall take necessary disciplinary steps for action according to the findings of the enquiring authority. You are, therefore, requested to take follow up action accordingly." 4. Respondent no.3 disagreed with the enquiry report and the order of respondent no.1, stating that :"... It appears that the report submitted by Justice R.C.P. Sinha (Rtd.) is not based on material on record ... Dr. Baban Singh had requisite educational qualification and teaching experience as required for the post of Principal, ... may please be exonerated from the charges levelled against him", vide his letter dated 9.1.1998 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1). It appears that the report submitted by Justice R.C.P. Sinha (Rtd.) is not based on material on record ... Dr. Baban Singh had requisite educational qualification and teaching experience as required for the post of Principal, ... may please be exonerated from the charges levelled against him", vide his letter dated 9.1.1998 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1). After a consideration of the objection of respondent no.3, he was informed that "...the Hon ble Chancellor after due consideration of the reply of the University has been pleased to call for an explanation from you as to why the order of the Hon ble Chancellor as communicated by the Secretariat letter no. 2805/G.S. (I), dated 26.9.1997, has not been complied with as yet", and the consequential direction to carry out the order without further delay vide communication dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1). Respondent no.3 replied by his letter dated 3.7.1998 (Annexure-3) that "...I find myself unable to agree with the report of Justice Sinha ... After having given my anxious consideration I am of the opinion that Dr. Babban Singh has been legally and validly appointed by the aforesaid Commission as Principal of a college. "This was followed by another letter dated 25.10.1998 (Annexure-E to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1) from respondent no.3 tc respondent no.1, stating that ".. I still hold the view that Dr. Baban Singh was in continuous service of 12 years from 5.8.1980 to 24.8.1992 without any break and he had been paid first salary in the month of December 1986, after the college was made constituent unit on 1.12.1986, vide enquiry report of Dr. Nandji Kumar, the then Proctor of the Magadh University, who had been made enquiry officer to enquire and report on this issue." 5. Respondent no.1, therefore, reviewed the entire matter and recorded his detailed minutes on 11.2.2000, and the following is a portion of the same. "After examination of the matter, find that the action of the Vice Chancellor is not at all in conformity with the direction given by the Chancellor. According to Section 10 (18) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 disciplinary action against the employees including the officers and teachers of the University has to be taken by the Vice Chancellor. "After examination of the matter, find that the action of the Vice Chancellor is not at all in conformity with the direction given by the Chancellor. According to Section 10 (18) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 disciplinary action against the employees including the officers and teachers of the University has to be taken by the Vice Chancellor. It has been established after proper enquiry conducted by a former Judge of the Hon ble High Court that Dr. Baban Singh did not have requisite teaching experience of 12 years. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya is, therefore, directed once again to take necessary disciplinary action against him (Dr. Baban Singh) in accordance with law on the basis of the findings of the Enquiring Authority which has been communicated to him vide Governors Secretariat letter dated 26.9.97." Copy of the minutes of respondent no.1 was forwarded to respondent no.3 for compliance within two months from the date of receipt of the order, vide communication dated 11.12.2000 (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit of respondent no.1). 6 This matter was taken up by this Court on 26.3.2003, on which date respondent no.3 was directed to appear on 2.4.2003. Shri Abhimanyu Singh is the present incumbent in the Office of Vice Chancellor of Magadh University, who is present today and submits his supplementary counter affidavit personally sworn by him. It is stated therein that he assumed office in early 2002, and learnt of the issues involved in this writ petition on receipt of the letter dated 1.4.2002 (Annexure-R- A), for and on behalf of respondent no.1. It is further stated therein that the Syndicate of the Magadh University in course of its meeting held on 14.9.2001, had constituted a Committee comprising of three members to go into the issues and submit a report, and the deponent directed the Registrar to have the Committees report expedited. It is also stated that a copy of letter no. MU-66/99-3934/GS (I), dated 11.12.2000, alongwith the said minutes of the Chancellor (Annexure-F to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent no.1), has been forwarded to respondent no.5 (Dr. Baban Singh) on 11.12.2001, calling him upon as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him vide letter dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure-R-B to the supplementary counter affidavit of University). It is also stated that there has been no progress in the matter at all. 7. Baban Singh) on 11.12.2001, calling him upon as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him vide letter dated 11.12.2001 (Annexure-R-B to the supplementary counter affidavit of University). It is also stated that there has been no progress in the matter at all. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.1, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 5 at length. We feel very unhappy at the manner in which the order of the Chancellor has been persistently violated by respondent no.3. It appears from the materials before us that three persons have occupied the office of respondent no.3 in succession including the present incumbent who is present in Court today ever since respondent no.1 issued his first order to respondent no.3. It is manifest that the enquiry was under the orders of this Court on a duly contested writ petition. It is relevant to state that the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Magadh University, the Chancellor and Shri Babban Singh were respondent nos. 1 to 4 respectively in the earlier writ petition. The enquiry report has been duly accepted by the Chancellor. The subsequent action of respondent no.3 to sit in judgment over the order of respondent no.1 is inappropriate. The rule of law is at a discount in this case and, if allowed any further, will have the pernicious tendency of unleashing chaotic conditions in Government and the society. 8. In that view of the matter, respondent no.3 directed to ensure compliance of the orders of respondent no.1 adverted to hereinabove within a period of three months from today. As an interim measure, respondent no.5 shall cease to function as Principal forthwith which will abide the result of the action taken by respondent no.3 failing which he shall render himself personally liable for contempt proceedings. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Let copies of this order be handed over to learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and 5 forthwith.