IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3679 of 2009 ====================================================== Budhadeo Prasad Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The Chancellor Of Universities .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Shankar Mr. Brajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp1) Mr. Shivendra Kishore Mr. T.N.Maitin Mr. Ram Chandra Lal Das Mr. Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 7 13-10-2011 Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of notification bearing memo no. VCR- 3351-3450/09 dated 28.2.2009, issued by the Registrar L.N.Mithila University, Darbhanga under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, whereby Dr. Puran Chandra Lal Das ( Respondent No.5) has been appointed as Principal of M.K.S. College, Trimohan, Chandauna under the reserved category of physically handicapped. An advertisement was published under the Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P2 o/10/10 2 signature of the Registrar, L.N.Mithila University, Darbhanga, inviting applications, for filling up 36 vacant posts of Principals in different Colleges under L.N.Mithila University, Darbhanga. In response to the advertisement petitioner as well as other candidates submitted their application. Candidates were interviewed from 27.2.2009 to 28.2.2009 and on the basis of their performance and academic qualification, 36 applicants were recommended and appointed as Principal, under different categories, as provided under Section 57(b) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as well as under the provisions of the Statute approved by the Chancellor and communicated vide letter No. BSU-23/2007-2187/GS(II) dated 30.6.2008. Petitioner had also applied for the post of Principal but his name was not recommended by the Selection Committee. Dr. Puran Chandra Lal Das ( Respondent No.5) was one of the selected candidates, whose name was recommended by the Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P3 o/10/10 3 Selection Committee in general category, as physically handicapped candidates. Respondent no.5 was appointed as Principal of M.K.S. College, Trimohan, Chandauna, where the petitioner being the senior most teacher was continuing as Professor In-charge since 30.8.2007 and also used to discharge the duties of In-charge Principal of the College. On account of appointment of Respondent no.5 as Principal, the petitioner’s position as In-charge Principal of the College was disturbed. That seems to be the real cause for challenging the appointment of respondent no.5. The appointment of respondent no. 5 has been challenged by the petitioner on two grounds:- Firstly the reservation has been provided in case of solitary post of Principal, as such it amounts to 100% reservation and thus contrary to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Secondly the Principal of the College being a teacher as defined under Section 2(V) of the Bihar State Universities Act, must be eligible to teach Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P4 o/10/10 4 any of the subjects being taught in the College. Respondent no.5 having Post graduate degree in Geography and there being no faculty of Geography in the College, Respondent No.5 is unable to discharge his duty as teacher. This makes his appointment as Principal in the concerned College. Violative of statutory provisions and on both these counts his appointment is fit to be cancelled. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 as well as the University. In both the counter affidavits the ground taken by the petitioner challenging appointment of respondent no.5 as Principal M.K.S. College, Trimohan, Chandauna has been contradicted. Respondent No.5 on the other hand, had challenged maintainability of writ application, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of University of Cochin Vs. N.S. Kanjooamna (1997 (2) PLJE Sc 40). The stand of the respondent is that the petitioner having Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P5 o/10/10 5 participated in the selection cannot be permitted to challenge its validity later on, being unsuccessful. Petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of procedure adopted for selection of candidates as he knowingly participated in the selection process. He never raised any objection against any illegality regarding clubbing of 36 posts and application of reservation policy in selection/appointment of Principal. Later on, being unsuccessful, he cannot be allowed to challenge the selection of candidates appointed through the selection process.. The pleadings of the parties, indicate that in response to advertisement for filling up 36 vacancies to the post of principals, in different colleges, petitioner, respondent no.5 and others had applied. They were interviewed and 36 persons were recommended for being appointed as Principal. In the advertisement itself the post reserved under different category had been Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P6 o/10/10 6 mentioned. Respondent no.5 was recommended by the Selection Committee in general category as physically handicapped candidate. This recommendation was in accordance with the provisions for such reservation under the Statute. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the posts of Principal being a solitary post and each college being a separate Unit, the reservation cannot be made applicable in selection/appointment of Principal as it will amount to 100% reservation and that is not permissible under the Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. So far petitioner’s stand regarding principal’s post being a single post and the college being a separate unit, is not sustainable, considering the provisions under the revised Statute 2008. The procedure for appointment to the post of Principal, under the revised Statute 2008, do not provide for appointment of Principal, subject-wise or college-wise, specially when the college is multiple subject Institution. Only in case Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P7 o/10/10 7 of single faculty college, like Engineering, Medical and Law, post of Principal can be considered as a solitary post and the Institution as the single Unit. Under the revised statute the post of Principal has been made transferable and the reservation policy of the State Government is fully applicable. The ground taken by the petitioner regarding non application of reservation policy of the State Government has no application in the present case. The post of Principal not being an isolated post, the objection raised by the petitioner is rejected. Otherwise also through the advertisement 36 posts of principals were advertised, which is more than one and in such circumstances, the reservation policy can be made applicable, as provided under the statute and the Constitution. Other ground taken by the petitioner relates to non-availability of faculty of Geography in M.K.S. College, on account of which respondent no.5 is unable to discharge his teaching duty, which is mandatory. In support of this contention Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P8 o/10/10 8 petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 965, Annapurna Devi Vs. State of Bihar. In this decision it has been held that for appointment as Principal in the constituent college, the candidate must possess qualification and requisite teaching experience in any of the subject, which is being taught in the college, because the post of principal is not merely an administrative post but being a teacher, as defined under section 2(V) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The Principal has to teach students and engage classes. In order to contradict this ground respondent no.5 had submitted that he teaches Statistics to the students of Economics in B.A. Part III, so far Geography is concerned it encompasses several other subjects, which are being taught in the college. The respondent no.5 can teach those subjects, to the students. The stand taken by the petitioner is baseless and cannot be a ground for allowing writ Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P9 o/10/10 9 application. What I find that simply because Geography is not a subject being taught in the college, in which respondent no.5 has been posted as Principal, his appointment cannot be held to be illegal and fit to be cancelled, at best he can be transferred to any other college, which has got affiliation in Geography. Some other persons can be transferred and posted in place of respondent no.5 as Principal of the concerned College. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the application. The petitioner himself was not recommended by the Selection Committee and he has not challenged appointment of any other selected candidates who also have been appointed as Principal through same selection process. He has only challenged the appointment of respondent no.5, simply because he has been posted in the same college, where petitioner earlier used to discharge the duties of In-charge Principal. The ground taken by the petitioner for challenging the selection/ appointment of Patna High Court CWJC No.3679 of 2009 (7) dt 13-10-2011 P10 o/10/10 10 respondent no.5 thus, has got no merit and writ application is dismissed. A.Kumar/- (Mridula Mishra, J)