IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1753 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 16246 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.9485 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.9577 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1753 of 2010 ========================================= Dr. Kumkum Singh w/o Braj Nandan Singh, r/o Bara Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, Town & District - Munger ………….. Appellant Versus 1. The T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar, namely, Dr. Rajeev Kr. Sinha 2. The Vice Chancellor, T.M.Bhagalpur University. Bhagalpur, namely Dr. K.N.Dubey 3. The Pro Vice –Chancellor, T.M.Bhagalpur University. Bhagalpur, namely Dr. Dhrub Kumar 4. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities in Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna ……… Respondents ============================================ APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Purushottam Kr. Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K.Ghosh, AAG II Mr. A.K.Keshri, Advocate Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, AC to AAG V For the Intervenor : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 16/11/2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 6th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.16246 of 2010. The appellant – writ petitioner, a Principal in the M.A.M.College, Naugachia, affiliated to the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”), filed the above CWJC. No.16246 of 2010 to challenge the order dated 15th September 2010 made by the University. Under the said order, the University has withheld the financial and administrative powers of the appellant as a Principal of the M.A.M. College, Naugachia and has directed her to report for duty at the University Headquarters. Under notification dated 18th September 2010, she was directed to report to the Principal, S.M.College, Bhagalpur. It appears that the impugned order was made in the wake of a controversy raised by certain teachers in CWJC. No.4229 of 2010 and the order dated 30th March 2010 made by the learned Single Judge pending the said writ petition. Pursuant to the said order dated 30th March 2010, the University called upon the appellant to re- instate certain teachers in the college which the appellant staunchly refused to do. According to the appellant, instruction issued by the University was contrary to the said order dated 30th March 2010 and a further order dated 8th 3 September 2010 made on intervention of the appellant. The impugned order has evidently been made for defiance of the instructions issued by the University and is punitive in nature. The learned Single Judge has, after considering the writ petition and the defence statement filed by the University, observed; “Everyone has become over sensitive to a non-issue. If any clarification was required, it should have been sought from the court because the last confusion if any or if at all was created by this court by grant of status quo.” Keeping in view the facts of the case, the learned Single Judge has observed; “The Vice –Chancellor should consider restoring the position of the petitioner as the Principal and, consequently, the petitioner would permit the persons, as contained in communication of the order as contained in Annexure -5, to join because on that day when the said writ petition was finally disposed the University had already issued orders to the Principal to accept the rejoining of those persons.” Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. The learned advocate Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the action of the appellant was in accordance with the order dated 30th March 2010 made by this court. The instructions issued by the University were contrary to the direction issued by the court. The appellant was, therefore, wholly justified in her actions. 4 In the said fact situation, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed the impugned notification dated 15th September 2010 and ought to have restored the financial and administrative powers of the appellant. He has also submitted that the concerned teachers were already relieved by the appellant on 16th March 2010. In view of the order of the status quo made by the learned Single Judge on 30th March 2010 and on 8th September 2010, there could not have been an order of reinstatement or rejoining of those teachers. We see no merit in this Appeal. We agree with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has become sensitive to a non-issue. Moreover, the appellant’s interest has been taken care of. Allowing the teachers to rejoin cannot be a matter of concern with the appellant. It may also be noted that the appellant was not a party respondent to the above referred CWJC. No.4229 of 2010 nor was any direction issued by this court to the appellant. The appellant has complicated the matter by approaching the court and by intervening on her own volition. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) 5