Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1665 (PAT)

Sudha Rani Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2007-10-09

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. CWJC No. 8090 of 2007 was disposed of by judgment and order dated 30.7.2007 by this Court. 2. The dispute related to extension of age of superannuation of the teachers and staff of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies at Patna. In the said order, this Court noticed with anguish as to how the Board of Control of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies is flouting the statutory obligation cast on it to meet every three months at least and take decisions amenable to the Board of Control. The result of that empass is that though as per the University Grants Commission Guidelines, the age of superannuation of the teachers of University has already been extended to 62 years by the State Government, the teachers of A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies are awaiting decision of the Board of Control in this matter because Board of Control has not met since May, 2006 that is for almost one and half years. The statute requires the Board to meet at least once in every three months. In those circumstances, even though the Board of Conrol did take up the matter on the 6th of May, 2006 but shelved for absence of any guideline in this regard. This Court, having held that it was for the Board of Control to amend service conditions, directed by the aforesaid judgment and order that the Board of Control of the Institute would take a decision in his regard preferably within forty five days on production of copy of this order before the Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar and the Director of the Institute. This order was passed on the 30th of July, 2007. The order, thus, had to be complied with by about 15th of September, 2007. On 12th of September 2007, the present MJC application for modification of the said order was filed on behalf of the A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies. It prayed for extending the period of forty five days by four months. The plea was that the Board of Control has not been constituted. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the writ petitioner stated that the Board of Control is to be constituted by twelve members as per Section 5 of the Anugragh Narain Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act, 1964. None of the twelve members are to be elected. The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the writ petitioner stated that the Board of Control is to be constituted by twelve members as per Section 5 of the Anugragh Narain Sinha Institute of Social Studies Act, 1964. None of the twelve members are to be elected. All the members are to be nominated and/or appointed. Ten, out of twelve, the nomination has to come from the State University or the State Government. In the rejoinder, it is further stated that seven members are already on the Board. They are Chairman as nominated by the State Government, Vice Chancellor of the Patna University, two representatives of ICSSR, New Delhi, Director of the Institute, Secretary to the Government in the Department of Human Resources Development and the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Finance. Therefore, out of twelve, seven are there and available. The five who are not yet been nominated are one Vice Chancellor from amongst Universities of Bihar other than Patna University who is to be appointed by the State Government, another is a representative from the University Grants Commission to be nominated by the Chairman of the Commission. Two persons of eminence again to be nominated by the State Government in consultation with the Chairman and one faculty representative of the rank of Professor to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the Professors of the Institute itself. From this, it would be seen that barring one representative of the UGC, the rest are to be nominated by the State Government is in deep slumber and needs to be woken up and is to be made alive of its statutory obligation by this Court time and again. This is pathetic. A reference to the said Act would also show that a duty is cast on the Board to meet at least once in three months. Again, the State Government and the Board of Control of the Institute wishes to forget this statutory obligation for reasons best known to them. The regulations, as framed by the Board of Control of the Institute, again emphasized this fact but again they forget their duty. The regulations of the Institute provides that five members of the Board of Control present in person shall constitute a corum at any meeting of the Board. The regulations, as framed by the Board of Control of the Institute, again emphasized this fact but again they forget their duty. The regulations of the Institute provides that five members of the Board of Control present in person shall constitute a corum at any meeting of the Board. From this, it is clear that not more than five persons are required to be present for the Board to meet and take decisions which decisions are to be taken by majority. As noticed above, Board has the statutory authority to amend the service conditions which includes the age of superannuation. 3. In this MJC, what is stated by the Institute is that the Board has not been constituted. This is absolutely fallacious and unsustainable in fact or in law. This is mere pretence of an excuse not to hold Boards meetings. Section 3 of the Act which deals with incorporation, sub-section (1) itself provides that the first Chairman and the first member of the Board and all persons who may become Chairman and member of the Board so long as they continue to hold such office or membership are hereby constitute a body corporate of the Institute and/sub-section (2) provides that the Institute shall have perpetual succession and a common seal. Once the Board was originally constituted after the Act came into being, the Board of Control was duly constituted and continues to be constituted even though there may be vacancy in the Board. Mere vacancies in the Board will not mean that the Board of Control is not constituted. It is for these reasons, this Court holds that the plea taken in this MJC application is a fallacious and a pretence to avoid taking decisions. By that stand, the Board of Control itself has violated the statutory obligation cast on it to meet every three months to discharge its duties. This is an abrasion more on the part of the State rather than the Board because the Board is nominated by the nominees of the State and the reason for the step motherly treatment of the State to the Institute is not explained. 4. This is an abrasion more on the part of the State rather than the Board because the Board is nominated by the nominees of the State and the reason for the step motherly treatment of the State to the Institute is not explained. 4. I, therefore, hold that there is no valid and bona fide reason for not holding the meeting of the Board of Control within the time specified by this Court and the prayer for granting more time is only a pretence of an excuse not to take a decision. The effect is that in the meantime employees who could get an extension of service if that was accepted by the Board of Control as it has been accepted by the Universities and State Government are left to retire and, thus, their service would stand terminated much before the others as and when the decision is taken. In my view, the State Government and the Board of Control lacks total sensitivity to these humane issue. 5. Before parting, I would also like to observe two more aspects of the matter. First, the Institute has not given any particulars as to when the term of UGC nominee expired and what steps muchless prompt and meaningful steps were taken by it to get UGC to nominate a representative. There is complete silence in this regard. Next, nothing has been brought on record to show what steps much less bona fide and expeditious steps did the Institute take to remind the State of its obligation to nominate different persons to the Board once the post fell vacant and lastly as noted above in the writ application also, the matter of extending the age of superannuation was taken up by the Board of Control in May, 2006 but shelved because there was no Government policy guideline in the matter. Even though the State Government, pursuant to UGC guideline, extended age of superannuation of teachers of University to 62 years, nothing has been brought on record either by the Institute or by the State Government to show that since May, 2006 any decision or deliberation was made by the Institute or the State Government with regard to the tenure of service of the teachers of the Institute. 6. 6. If government really thinks that this Institute is a premier Institute of the country and is a pride of Bihar then it is high time that the State Government woke up and took effective steps in the matter. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I reject the application as filed on behalf of the Institute and direct that the Board of Control shall meet within thirty days from today and the State Government will within the said period indicate its policy in conformity with the UGC guidelines in this regard to the Institute and the Board of Control and a decision shall have to be taken within this extended period without demur as the matter has already been inordinately delayed. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent immediately to the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Human Resources Development and Secretary to the State Government in the Department of Finance for proper compliance. A copy of the order may also be given to the counsel appearing on behalf of the Institute.