Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 384 (PAT)

Bilat Paswan Bihangam v. State Of Bihar

2014-03-27

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of Bihar State Inter University Board, Patna vide a notification issued under the orders of the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar dated 23.03.2005 in exercise of power under Section 6(1) and Section (2) of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981 on the recommendation of the State of Bihar for a period of three years from the date of his joining the post. Bihar Inter State University Board, however, got dissolved in view of the Bihar Inter University Board Repeal Act, 2007 which was notified in the official gazette on 19.04.2007. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed for a period of three years from the date of his joining, as Chairman of the Bihar State University Board, and therefore, he would be entitled for salary for the period 19.04.2007 with effect from which the Board stood dissolved till 24.03.2008, being the date on which he would have completed the period of three years from the date of his joining as Chairman, Bihar Inter University Board, had the Board been not dissolved. 3. In the background of these facts, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the Respondents to pay him salary and emoluments of the post of Chairman, Bihar Inter University Board for the period of 19.04.2007 to 24.03.2008. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner’s appointment was made under the orders of the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar who happens to be the Governor of the State of Bihar. Referring to Section 6(2) of the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981, he contends that the petitioner held the post of Chairman of the Board during the pleasure of the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar i.e. the Governor of Bihar, and therefore, relying upon Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India contends that he should be held to be entitled for payment of compensation as his service came to an end prior to expiration of agreed period in view of abolition of the Board itself. 5. I am not ready to accept the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as noted above, for two reasons. 5. I am not ready to accept the submission made by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as noted above, for two reasons. Firstly, Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India will have no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case as he was not holding the post of Chairman of the Bihar Inter University Board during the pleasure of the Governor of Bihar. He was appointed by the Chancellor of the Universities within the meaning of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. He cannot claim any protection or benefit under the provisions of Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India. Secondly, Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India, is an enabling provision under which it can be provided under a contract appointing a person to hold a post for payment of compensation to him, if before expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he, for the reason not connected with any misconduct on his part, is required to vacate that post. This is not the petitioner’s case that contract of his appointment required payment to him of compensation or emoluments if before expiration of an agreed period, the post of Chairman stood abolished. He accordingly cannot base his claim on Article 310(2) of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any dispute that though the Governor of Bihar is also the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar, while functioning as Governor of Bihar, he discharges sovereign functions under Chapter II Part IV of the Constitution of India whereas while functioning as Chancellor he exercises statutory power under the Bihar State Universities Act. It cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed by the Governor of Bihar and required to hold the post of Chairman during the pleasure of the Governor of Bihar, on the ground that under the Bihar State Universities Act, he is Chancellor of Universities also. 6. There is no provision under which the petitioner can claim payment of salary for the period as claimed by him. He in fact did not function and did not discharge duties as Chairman of the Board after the Bihar Inter University Board Act, 1981 came to be repealed. 7. In do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.