IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13149 of 2009 1. SATISH CHANDRA JHA S/O SHIV CHANDRA JHA VILL- RAMAULI, P.S. BAHERA, DISTT. DARBHANGA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR 3. VICE CHANCELLOR KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA 4. REGISTRAR KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA 5. ADHOC COMMITTEE, LAXMIVATI SANSKRIT COLLEGE SARISABPAHEE, MADHUBANI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. J P Shukla, Sr. Advocate & R K Shukla. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC – 24 and Mr. Arjun Prasad, AC to SC-24. For the University : Mr. S S Sundaram. ----- 9. 12.5.2011 Writ was filed by the petitioner when Annexure-3 dated 1.8.2009 was issued by the then Vice-Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. By virtue of this letter salary of the petitioner and his emoluments came to be stopped since the petitioner failed to carry out the direction of the Vice-Chancellor of producing the records which were demanded from him in relation to appointment of teachers in the College in question. It is an affiliated college under the University and its affairs is run by the Managing Committee duly constituted. Stand of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner has co-operated and is willing to co-operate and has tendered extracts of proceeding books, 2 which were readily available but now demand has been made to produce proceeding books prior to 21.5.2000. Since the petitioner was not willing to fall in line, obviously the Vice- Chancellor has to resort to his instinct to ensure compliance of his direction. All this controversy was raised at a time when the then Vice-Chancellor himself was in a lot of controversies. There are many a things which were alleged against the then Vice-Chancellor and there is insinuation that all this action was not a bonafide action taken by the University for good administration of the College or the University as such. In the changed circumstances and in absence of any clear law why a working person should be debarred from drawing his salary, this Court quashes Annexure-3 and gives a direction upon the respondents to ensure that petitioner is paid his salary since his working is not an issue. So far as an enquiry or looking into the records of the College and the dispute raised by certain teachers with regard to appointment is concerned, the Court surely records that University has authority to demand and beget such documents for verification and it is obligatory both on the part of the petitioner as an acting Principal as well as Managing Committee to ensure that those records are produced. An affidavit has been filed that certain records have been tendered but there is a deliberate effort to not take a 3 decision in this regard. Since a new acting Vice-Chancellor is in place, I hope he will take a fair and clear view of the dispute which was initiated by his predecessor and reach a conclusion at the earliest but the Court categorically directs both the petitioner as well as the Managing Committee that they shall not play game with the University authorities and make excuses for non-compliance. If there is one then the Vice-Chancellor is given authority to deal with both the Managing Committee as well as the present petitioner in accordance with law. The writ application itself in the above circumstance stands disposed of. No separate order is required to be passed on the I.A. filed by the petitioner. It is clarified that petitioner will get his arrears and current salary but this will not in any way embolden the petitioner not to comply with the direction issued by the University on this score. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)