Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 671 (PAT)

Shashi Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-07-08

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order of concurrence passed by the Secretary, Bihar College Service Commission, Patna, whereby the concurrence has been granted to the appointment of Respondent No.9 as the Principal, Shershah College, Sasaram, The aforesaid order is contained in Annexure-1. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order would go to show that the same has been done in view of some order of this Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. 2. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of Annexure-2 which is the original letter of the College Service Commission granting concurrence to the appointment of one Dharamraj Singh as Principal of Shershah College, Sasaram. 3. Contention on behalf of the petitioners is that Respondent No.9 claims to have been appointed as Lecturer in Physics at Shershah College, Sasaram on 2.8.1975 and had produced experience certificate showing two years teaching experience. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid certificate on verification has been found to be forged and fabricated as the authorities and the managing committee of the college had clearly asserted that no such appointment was ever made nor the certificate is said to have been granted by the aforesaid college. It has further been contended that Shershah college was not affiliated in Science faculty at degree level during the aforesaid period. The aforesaid affiliation was granted for the first time for the sessions 1982-83. The Respondent No.9 is said to have been appointed as Professor in-charge of the aforesaid college. The Governing body in its meeting dated 2.5.1976 promoted the Respondent no.9 as Principal of the college. These facts have been brought on record to show that the Respondent No.9 did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as a Principal of the college as he did not possess the minimum period of teaching experience which was required for his appointment or even consideration of this case for appointment as a Principal in an affiliated college. From the records of the case it also transpires that though Respondent No.9 has appeared through counsel but the aforesaid contention could not be contested rather has been accepted. A fact which is accepted is that Respondent No.9 did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as a Principal of the college. From the records of the case it also transpires that though Respondent No.9 has appeared through counsel but the aforesaid contention could not be contested rather has been accepted. A fact which is accepted is that Respondent No.9 did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as a Principal of the college. The appointment of Respondent No. 9 had been challenged before this Court, rather the same was subject matter of consideration before a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5382 of 1996 which was disposed of by order dated 9.5.1997. In the aforesaid writ application the appointment of Respondent no.9 came for consideration. The writ Court disposed of the matter by directing the writ petitioner to agitate his grievance by filing a representation before the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara and if such a representation was preferred, the Vice Chancellor was directed to get the matter investigated after obtaining a report, he was further directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was further directed that if need be after affording an opportunity to the Respondent, if the Vice Chancellor came to the conclusion that the Commissions concurrence was obtained by fraudulent means, mis-representation or otherwise, he was directed to make necessary recommendation to the Commission. It appears that initially inspite of filing representation nothing was done at the level of the Vice Chancellor, as such, a contempt application was preferred before this Court. During the pendency of the contempt application, the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah passed an order making his recommendation to the College Service Commission. In view of the same, the contempt application was disposed of. However, by filing the present application it has been contended by the petitioners that the matter was put at rest at that level itself, no order has been passed by the College Service Commission or otherwise. As such, he had no option but to move this Court by filing the present writ application. 4. Annexure-5, which is the report of the committee constituted by the University has also been relied upon and placed in Court to show that Respondent No.9 had used fraudulent document to show his teaching experience and also that the teaching experience which has been considered was for a period when the college was not affiliated at the degree level in Science faculty. The report of the District Magistrate, Rohtas which forms part of Annexure-5 goes to show that the Shanker College where the Respondent No.9 claims to have been teaching experience for two years in the aforesaid college, there was no affiliation in the Science faculty and as such, no such appointment was made in Science teaching. Records of the college went to show that no such appointment was made on. Acting Principal of the aforesaid college, Dr. Shiv Narayan Singh has given a certificate to the effect that Dharamraj Singh was never appointed as Lecturer in the aforesaid college neither he ever joined the said college nor he was in service of the college. The aforesaid report also went to show that the Shershah College also affiliated in Science faculty till the Intermediate level from 1978-79 and the post of teacher in the Physics department was approved from 26.3.1980. Another fact which is clear from the said report is that for appointment as a Principal one must have at least ten years of teaching experience which admittedly the Respondent No.9 did not possess. As such, the committee had recommended that let Respondent No.9 be transferred to some other college so that academic atmosphere can be re-established in the college in question. Another report of the committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah is at Annexure-5/A dated 20.3.1996. The Committee recommended that as concurrence/approval has already been granted by the college service commission, as such, the college service commission be requested to reconsider the same and for which purpose the State Government and the Chancellor can also be moved. In addition to these two enquiry reports as discussed above, another enquiry committee had been set up by the Vice Chancellor in view of direction of this Court earlier. The said report which is at Annexures-7 and 8 would go to show that Dharamraj Singh was never appointed in Shanker College, Sasaram nor ever worked in the said college. The certificate used by him has been found to be fake. The aforesaid report had been submitted after providing an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.9. The said report which is at Annexures-7 and 8 would go to show that Dharamraj Singh was never appointed in Shanker College, Sasaram nor ever worked in the said college. The certificate used by him has been found to be fake. The aforesaid report had been submitted after providing an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.9. It has further been contended by learned counsel that by Annexure-1 the order of stay of Annexure-2 has been withdrawn giving reference to the cases of High Court and the Supreme Court but according to learned counsel, in addition to the matters as has been given in the writ application neither the petitioner nor the Respondent no.9 had moved this Court in any other application nor was there any order of the Supreme Court so far it related to the appointment/continuation of Respondent No.9 as the Principal of Shershah College, Sasaram. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.9 could not controvert any of the contention as made above rather a fact which has been accepted is that as he did not have ten years of experience probably he could not have been appointed rather even considered for appointment as a Principal of the College. However, it has been contended that once a concurrence has been granted by the College Service Commission it was the College Service Commission alone who after considering the matter could have cancelled the same. The University cannot after the concurrence of the College Service Commission passed any other order rather it has been contended that the college in question has become a constituent college and as such, the University Service Commission may be given appropriate directions. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the College Service Commission, on the other hand, has contended that as appropriate members are not in the College Service Commission or for that matter in the University Service Commission and as such, neither were functioning and it was only on the instruction of the Secretary, a counter affidavit was being filed and for considering the matter of appointment of Respondent no.9 on merit, the constitution of commission was a pre-condition and until and unless the commission was constituted the same would not be done and the commission was not in a position to pass any order. 7. 7. In the facts of the case as discussed above, it is clear that the Respondent no.9 did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as a Principal of the college. Notice has been given to him by the committee as would be clear from the report as contained in Annexures-7 and 8 but the Respondent no.9 could not satisfy the committee regarding the genuineness of his certificate or for that matter his having the minimum qualification even making him eligible for consideration. Such illegal appointment cannot be allowed to be continued. Helplessness on behalf of the College Service Commission to reconsider the matter as the commission has not been reconstituted and as most of its members had retired, this Court cannot allow an illegality to be perpetuated which has been allowed to continue since long. As such, the writ application succeeds. Annexures-1 and 2 are quashed and the Respondent no.9 shall cease the function as the Principal of the Shershah College, Sasaram forthwith. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara is directed to appoint a professor in charge being the senior most teacher from the aforesaid college or by transferring a senior teacher to the college in question following the statutes and Rules framed in this regard, who shall be discharging the duties of professor in-charge temporarily till the post of Principal is duly advertised and filled up in accordance with law. 8. This writ application succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above.