Letters Patent Appeal No.1147 OF 2000 (Aainst the order dated 17.07.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3299/1999) RANA RAN VIJAY KR.SINGH RAJIV S/O Late Dr. Sadanand Singh, R/O- Village- Dharamrahi, P.S.-Belhai, District-Banka Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 4. The B.R. Ambedkar University through its Registrar, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 5. The Principal Sri Yatindra Narayan, Astang Ayurved College Nath Nagar Bhagalpur. 6. The Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Patna. --------------------------(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS----------------------------------------(Respondents) For the appellant – Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondents – Sri K. Uday Bhanu Roy, G.A.-4. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA Barin Ghosh & S.K. Sharma, J.J. Appellant was an employee of a privately owned affiliated college. He was engaged on 2nd January, 1975 to teach Chemistry to students, who were preparing themselves for enrolling in Graduation course after passing I.Sc. Examination. Appellant was then a Graduate in Science. - 2 - While the appellant was, thus, engaged, Bihar Private Medical (Indian System of Medicine) College (Taking-over) Act, 1985 came into force and by reason thereof the college where the petitioner was teaching stood transferred to and vested in the State Government with all its liabilities and assets. Since the college was a medical college teaching Indian System of Medicine at the time of its taking over, it had then no branch competent to teach students for preparing in I.Sc. Examinations. By reason of the Provisions contained in Section 6 of the Act all the teachers of the said college, including the appellant, lost their employment, but at the same time they became Ad hoc employees of the taken over medical college. With that, they acquired a right to be considered by an expert committee to ascertain whether they were appointed, promoted or confirmed in accordance with the Act, Statute or Regulations of the University concerned keeping with the guidelines laid down by the Medical Council of India. Petitioner’s continuous appointment in the taken over college could - 3 - only be justified, provided he was appointed as lecturer and had competence to be appointed as lecturer. The concept of appointment of lecturers applies only to colleges which impart education at the pre-university stage after completion of the School stage. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was considered to ascertain whether he could be appointed as lecturer of the college and if so, whether such appointment can be directed to continue in the taken over college. The expert committee found that since the petitioner was merely a Science graduate and did not possess a Master’s degree in Science, he was, in accordance with the Statute governing the University, not entitled to be appointed as lecturer and accordingly, cannot be asked to continue. The Statute of 1978 relating to teachers of affiliated degree colleges makes it abundantly cleared that the minimum qualification for being appointed as a lecturer in an affiliated college is a First or the Second Class Master’s degree. That being the situation, the opinion expressed by the expert committee that the petitioner - 4 - cannot be asked to continue, is not interferable. Petitioner relies upon the decision of the Chancellor, who has held that having regard to the nature of qualification, the petitioner acquired after declaration thereof in 1990, the petitioner became entitled to be appointed as a lecturer in a medical college of the nature with which we are concerned here. In 1989 when the opinion was expressed by the expert committee, they could not assume that the petitioner would be declared subsequently to have acquired the degree equivalent to a Master’s degree in Science. Furthermore in terms of Sub-Sections (ii) & (iii) of Section 6 of the Act, the appellant could continue in the taken over college after his absorption therein, provided the committee of experts were of the view that his appointment was in accordance with the Act, Statute or Regulations of the University. As aforesaid, since the very appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Statute, and there being no contention on the part of the appellant of Re- - 5 - appointment at a later point of time, the committee of experts could not recommend for continuing the appellant as a lecturer upon his absorption in the taken over college. Lastly, the appellant has contended that a similarly placed person, namely Mukti Nath Jha succeeded in C.W.J.C. No. 1103 of 1995. A look at the judgment passed in the said writ petition would not suggest that there was any controversy as regards the basic qualification of Mukti Nath Jha. Mukti Nath Jha had a Master’s degree in Science. The controversy in the said writ petition was whether the subject Botany, for teaching which subject Mukti Nath Jha had been appointed, is required to be taught in the taken over college, having regard to the change in the Syllabus. This Court answered the question raised in the said writ petition by declaring that Botany is also required to be taught as a subject in the changed Syllabus. Therefore, the decision rendered in the said writ petition had and has no bearing in so far as appellant in the present - 6 - proceeding is concerned. We see, therefore, no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner challenging the decision not to continue him as a lecturer of the taken over college was dismissed. The appellant was asked to discharge the duties of librarian of the taken over college. The appeal, is accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court, Dated: 22nd December, 2008 kksinha/ N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)