JUDGMENT RAVI S. DHAVAN:- This matter relates to teachers from the Rajendra Agricultural University at Pusa, Samastipur. The issue has been unnecessarily stretched and kept pending for ten years. The record before the Court on behalf of the respondents is a clear exercise on how not to solve the problem. 2. The issue is simple. The teacher raised a claim and in fact had their claim accepted for grant of two time bound promotions provided they had discharged continuous service for 16 years. Statutes were framed with every intention to grant time bound promotion. The notification was never published. Thereafter, the teachers of this University have been running from pillar to post that whatever they had been assured and formally conveyed be granted as a relief. Their claim for relief apparently fell on dead ears. 3. In so far as first petition was concerned the learned Judge was of the opinion that the aspect that the notification granting time bound promotion was never formalised by publication did not confer any right on the teachers to receive monetary benefits. This was a decision in C.W.J.C., No. 9622 of 1992 dated 17.3.1994. Against this decision a letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed. This was L.P.A. No. 35 of 1994 (Annexure-7 to C.W.J.C. No. 397/98). The decision in the Letters Patent Appeal brought no relief. A Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal was of the view that the teachers concerned may bring their petition individually and that the order of the learned Judge on the petition would not be binding on them. Thus, what was certified by the Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal is that the order of the learned Judge would not be within the ambit of res judicata. 4. At this point the matter needs to be clarified. All that happened before the L.P.A. Bench was that there was no resolution of the dispute and the issues continued as the teachers were unsuited on the ground that by a certain decision of the Supreme Court an association could not file a petition. 5. With much respect to the learned Bench which passed the order, the decision of the Supreme Court was misapplied without reasons. The decision referred to is in re. Mahendra Gupta and others Vs. 5. With much respect to the learned Bench which passed the order, the decision of the Supreme Court was misapplied without reasons. The decision referred to is in re. Mahendra Gupta and others Vs. The Union of India (1995 1 Supreme Court Cases 85) is a matter relating to seeking franchise on a contract for dealership about distributionship of petroleum products supplied by Central Government owned oil corporations. Those who had cases filed as an association of persons as opposed to individuals seeking their claimed business rights, the Supreme Court unsuited them on the ground that a right to trade and do business cannot be claimed by an association, in effect, it must be sought by those who do business. 6. The present issues before the Patna High Court have been brought by an association of teachers who were claiming a right as a class for their cadre. It was a class action which ought to have been considered on merit. The saving grace is that the same Bench also certified that the decision of the learned Judge would not operate as res judicata and the teachers may come to claim their rights individually. Thus, several further writ petitions were filed. These writ petitions were laid before a Division presided over by a learned Judge who gave no reasons and evaded the issue and referred the matter to a larger Bench. If the matter had to be referred to a larger Bench then reasons ought to have been recorded why a decision of a coordinate Bench was not being followed. This is in the context of C.W.J.C. No. 9622 of 1992. Further, that decision had already been certified by a Bench hearing the Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 35 of 1994) as not being applicable to the petitioner-appellant as it was an association and not an individual teacher. Thus, subsequently the teachers came individually. Truely, the issues brought in the subsequent petition were encouraged by the then L.P.A. Bench. Thus, the subsequent petitions had been filed. They ought to have been adjudicated. 7. Today, it will be a traversity of justice if this Court were to send this petition to a Bench presided over by a Judge as that would virtually mean that the petitioner would be shutting between one Bench to another. Already the petitioners have brought petitions but with no result and the issues remain unresolved. 8. 7. Today, it will be a traversity of justice if this Court were to send this petition to a Bench presided over by a Judge as that would virtually mean that the petitioner would be shutting between one Bench to another. Already the petitioners have brought petitions but with no result and the issues remain unresolved. 8. Of a notification which has not been formalised and sent for printing, of a decision which had been taken by the Chancellor of the University, and all these were retracted when the State Government, perhaps, advised the Chancellor to stay his decision, the petitioners contend that the Chancellor does not have the power to review a decision which he may have taken earlier. 9. Coming now to the controversies: The decision of the State Government to grant time bound promotion: On 31.12.1990 the State Government took a decision, duly deliberated, that teachers at the Agricultural University of the State would be entitled to receive time bound promotion provided they have put in 16 years of continuous service. Nothing more need be recorded than this. This decision of the State Government is on record as Annexure-1 in CWJC no. 930 of 1998. Copies of this decision of the State Government had been marked to the Chief Secretary and other authorities which were required to process and carry out the orders. Thereafter, as the law so requires, should any matter affect the finances of the university or the incidence of finance may fall on the State, then Section 35 (25) requires statutes to provide for conditions of service, on the remuneration and allowances to be paid to teachers of the University. This decision has to be taken because the State must first, as a policy, decide whether the teachers are to receive increased emoluments as these are fiscal matters which may require a budgetary exercise. The law permits the State Government to look into these matters. If the State Government is to take a decision in the affirmative, then the salary may increase, on a policy decision. 10. This was the decision which was taken within the meaning of Section 35(25) on 31.12.1990 (Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 930 of 1998). Thereafter, the Chancellor as the head of the universities receives a statute on which he may accord assent. 10. This was the decision which was taken within the meaning of Section 35(25) on 31.12.1990 (Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 930 of 1998). Thereafter, the Chancellor as the head of the universities receives a statute on which he may accord assent. Section 36 requires that the decision so taken, in the present case by the State Government must see an announcement as a statute and further an approval of Chancellor who may assent or withhold assent or even remit such a statute to the Board of Management for consideration. Should the Chancellor assent, the Act requires the statutes be published in the official gazette. 11. On 17 August, 1991 consequent upon the decision of the government having been conveyed to the learned Chancellor about two Universities (a) Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi and (b) Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa a communication was received by State Government that the Chancellor in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 36 (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Agriculture University Act, 1988 has been pleased to accord his consent/assent/ approval to the statutes as referred to him. (Annexure 1 to CWJC No. 397 of 1988). This communication also recorded that the statutes have made the benefits applicable w.e.f. 1 April 1987. Who would be entitled to how much benefits is not relevant for the issues before the Court. After the communication from the Commissioner cum Secretary to the Governor a notification had been formalised by the State government for the purpose of being published. The notification is dated 4 September 1991. This notification recites that upon the statutes having been approved by the Chancellor, with amendments. This was conveyed vide communication of Commissioner/Secretary, Governor of Bihar, letter no. 2 CS (1)/ Camp Ranchi, dated the 17th August 1991 declaring that the Statutes are hereby notified under section 36(4) of the Act for general information. At this juncture it would be necessary to refer to the law. Sub Section 4 of Section 36 reads "all statutes made under this Act shall be published in the official gazette". Shall is the requirement of the law. 12. The crucial question now is that in so far as the beneficiaries are concerned there was nothing more they could do except receive the monetary benefits. They rested with confidence that all formalities which the law requires to deliver the benefits to them have been done. Shall is the requirement of the law. 12. The crucial question now is that in so far as the beneficiaries are concerned there was nothing more they could do except receive the monetary benefits. They rested with confidence that all formalities which the law requires to deliver the benefits to them have been done. The sun had set on the notification. The government had given its commitment whatever be the contents of the notification and the Governor of the State had approved and rectified the notification and the action even, otherwise, under the Constitution was complete and formalised. The conduct of business of the Government of Bihar upon executive action of the government had been expressed and, in effect, taken in the name of the Governor. May be that he happens to be ex-officio Chancellor of the Universities. The fact that by some executive fiat the notification may not be published by the government press can only be termed as a breach of trust by the State in so far as the employees of the Universities are concerned. No power within the State could retract the notification once it has been formalised in the name of the Governor. The only way this decision could be recalled is an Act of the legislature. The other alternative was in case the State Government challenged its notification and it is unlikely, that the High Court would have been pursuaded to quash the notification at the instance of the State. 13. About six months after the notification had been issued, may be not published, a communication was received by the Vice Chancellor, Rajenara Agricultural University, Pusa that the Chancellor had been pleased to order that the operation of the statutes referred to above may be kept pending till further orders as the whole matter is under review and further consideration by the Chancellor. This is the decision dated 6 February 1992 (Annexure 2 in CWJC no. 397 of 1998). 14. Here it will be necessary to place on record that when the matter was taken up for hearing the Court noticed that the State Government had not filed a detailed counter affidavit. What has been filed is a “short counter affidavit". The controversies raised by the petitioners have not been replied to and the statements made by the petitioners are unrebutted. What has been filed is a “short counter affidavit". The controversies raised by the petitioners have not been replied to and the statements made by the petitioners are unrebutted. This Court is hearing this bunch of writ petitions virtually after a Division Bench seized of a Letters Patent Appeal on the same subject, advised the petitioners to come individually instead of as a group or as an association. The petitioners had not been unsuited but required to seek reliefs as an individual right. 15. Whether the reference to hear this matter had been referred to a larger bench rightly or wrongly was not an issue even when the matter was before a learned Judge. It was expected that the respondents would file their reply to this petition. This court gave an opportunity to the respondents that if the counter affidavit is to be filed then it may be filed but for delaying the matter and to ensure that it is not further delayed, the Court permitted the State respondents to file a counter affidavit upon payment of Rs.10,000/ - as cost. As of date neither the cost has been paid nor a counter affidavit replying to the petition as been placed on record. The reason the Court desired a counter affidavit in detail was because the record of the matter was not being made available before the Court. The respondents forget that a certiorari has been issued on this petition. For the State respondents not to place the record on a certiorari by the High Court is violation of Article 226 of the Constitution. What is there to hide? The functioning of the State Government in a matter where a notification has been framed and not implemented is a public issue not secret. Secrecy has to be claimed, which in a matter like the present one in a democracy is rarely a defence. 16. The fact that the learned Chancellor may have been pursuaded to review the decision would only arise if the Government had advised the Chancellor to do so. If the Governor of the State is bound by the advice of the Cabinet the fact that the Chancellor is ex-officio, then reasons must be disclosed why the government decided to revise its decision when the matter has reached finality even to the extent of placing a notification on record. If the Governor of the State is bound by the advice of the Cabinet the fact that the Chancellor is ex-officio, then reasons must be disclosed why the government decided to revise its decision when the matter has reached finality even to the extent of placing a notification on record. All that has happened is that the notification was not sent to the Government Press at Patna. Thus, today the Court does not know the reason why the learned Chancellor was pursuaded to review his decision when he has already accorded his approval and assent to the statutes under Section 36(2) and, thereafter, the respondents were obliged to publish the notification. 17. An argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner and has not been replied successfully on behalf of the State. The submission is, to the effect, that the Chancellor has not been vested with any powers under the statute i.e. to say the Bihar Agricultural University Act, 1987 to review his decision once it has been taken. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it is contended that once Chancellor has granted his approval to the statutes under Section 37, there is no inherent power left with the Chancellor to recall the assent or the approval which has been given. The Court finds that the Act has conferred no power on the Chancellor to recall the assent which he may have accorded to the statutes within the meaning of Sub section 3 of Section 36. 18. Under Section 37 once the formalities have been done and the last act being the assent of the Chancellor, there is an obligation of the law to notify the statutes. Not to notify would be running the government inconsistent with the law. The Chancellor is the head of the Statute, in effect, he is the Governor. If he were not the Governor, then, under the Act he would not be the Chancellor. The specific aspect that once a decision has been taken by the Head of the State and the government advised him to take the decision, it has to be carried through. If such a decision affecting the right of citizen is not given its effect then the citizen affected would be entitled to question the decision of the government. The specific aspect that once a decision has been taken by the Head of the State and the government advised him to take the decision, it has to be carried through. If such a decision affecting the right of citizen is not given its effect then the citizen affected would be entitled to question the decision of the government. The Government cannot take the posture that it reserves the right to publish or not to publish a notification. A Parliamentary democracy does not run on such aberrations. The Cabinet having taken a decision and having advised the Chancellor, the latter proceeded within his powers to accord assent to the statutes as amended, Publishing the notification is the necessary corollary in lending formality consistent with the law of the Constitution. Today's government does not have that much sovereignity nor the Constitution permits it. Those days are over and even this hypothesis rested in the premises that it is not the king who does wrong as any wrong which is done is by his officers. Tobin V.R (1861-73) All E.R. REP 1485; Johnstone V. Pedlar 1921 (2) AC 262; Viscount Cantebury V. Attorney General 1904(4) 41 ER 648. 19. Not to publish a notification is a shabby way of running a government. It is violative of the rule of law. It violates the spirit of the Constitution. 20. Though no one has argued the aspect but the Court notices that one of the learned Judges in examining a similar matter* (CWJC No. 962 of 1992 v: Rajendra Agriculture University Shikshak Manch Vs. The Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University and others) was of the opinion that unless a notification is published it will confer no right. The learned Judge relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in re. Mahnar Notified Area Committee Vs. The State of Bihar (1968 PLJR 582). The Court has examined the decision in re. Mahnar Notified Area Committee (Supra). This decision has been misapplied and is out of context. In this very decision the Bench hearing the matter, In fact criticises the government in not putting a notification into publication. Far from the decision being an aid to avoid interference it is necessary to recall the observations of the Court in re the Mahnar Notified Area Committee (Supra). This decision has been misapplied and is out of context. In this very decision the Bench hearing the matter, In fact criticises the government in not putting a notification into publication. Far from the decision being an aid to avoid interference it is necessary to recall the observations of the Court in re the Mahnar Notified Area Committee (Supra). The Court observed-“This is a typical case, perhaps out of many, which has come to our notice demonstrating as to how chaotic conditions are created in the affairs of the State by frequent change of Government......... “The Court was examining an aspect whether the Mahnar Notified Area Committee had been constituted. The issue was that the notification whether for constitution or for the recall of it has not been published. This case does not apply because constituting a unit of self government confers a right in rem to a population domiciled within an area to seek election and unless an area has been demarcated, by limitation or delimitation, an election cannot be held and representatives cannot represent the people of the area. Clearly, this case does not apply. 21. In the case before the Court a vested right has accrued to the teachers to receive time bound promotion but the formalities of the law required were deliberately evaded. If the State comes to the conclusion that the benefits are to be granted then and consequently statutes are framed. Such a decision having been taken as a matter of policy by the Chief Minister and his Cabinet, and so formalized in a notification sent to the Governor-Chancellor who in turn accorded assent; the State of Bihar stands committed. The right of the teachers to receive the benefits was a fact accomplished. 22. Nothing more had to be done by the teachers to receive this right and the Government does not have the power that it will at its pleasure permit the grant of time bound promotion. If this were so then the Government would be running in caprice. 23. The Court is also expressing its concern that matters cannot be kept pending for years in a carrot and stick game to leave persons who are entitled to their dues living in the hope that the benefits will accrue to them at least during the tenure of service. 23. The Court is also expressing its concern that matters cannot be kept pending for years in a carrot and stick game to leave persons who are entitled to their dues living in the hope that the benefits will accrue to them at least during the tenure of service. When a decision has been taken by the Government and formalised by an assent accorded by the head of the State, not to implement the decision would virtually tantamount to the Government running against the constitutional provisions. 24. This was too small and petty matter to deprive the teachers of their time bound promotion to which they had become entitled (a) when the Government took a decision at the highest level and (b) when the Chancellor accorded his assent to the Statutes. The Government may publish the statute or the Government may not publish the statute, the teachers become entitled to receive the benefits under this notification That it was not published notwithstanding, the petitioners rights under the notification accrue from the date when the benefits are to be provided to them. This date has been-mentioned in this notification as 1.4.1987. A writ of certiorari issues to certify that the teachers of this University are entitled to their rights as from 1.4.1987 under the notification dated 4 September, 1991. 25. In conclusion, the Court cannot help observing that the technicality of not publishing a notification in Bihar (six-Gazette) depends upon vagaries of the Government for it is not unknown that the Government press at Gulzarbagh also functions and prints at the pleasure and the will of the Government, so much so that official work of the Government is at times published by the government presses of other States. After the Government had decided to publish the notification and the learned Chancellor accorded his assent, it was shabby and dishonourable not to grant the relief to the teachers. Cutting corners like this is anti Constitution. 26. The petition is allowed with costs.