IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11044 of 2008 DR.INDRA DEO SINGH NIRALA &ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10294 of 2008 AWADHESH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10997 of 2008 DR.AJAY KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11186 of 2008 DR.USHA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.1194 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus SURESH PRASAD SHARMA with CWJC No.11298 of 2008 PROF.(SMT.)MEERA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.11385 of 2008 PROF.RATI KANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11494 of 2008 PROF.JARMAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.11337 of 2008 PROF.MADAN MOHAN CHOUDHARY 2 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11143 of 2008 PROF.UMESH KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11151 of 2008 PROF.ARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.11220 of 2008 DR.TEJ NARAYAN THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11221 of 2008 DR.BINAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.11320 of 2008 PROF.KALI DAS JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS with CWJC No.11222 of 2008 PROF.NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.10517 of 2008 DR.SIKANDAR RAI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12733 of 2008 (DR.)RAM SUDISHT CHOUDHARY Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS 3 with CWJC No.12780 of 2008 (DR.)SACHCHIDANAND CHOUDHARY Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12832 of 2008 ASHOK KUMAR JHA & ORS Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12661 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR THAKUR & ORS Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12734 of 2008 (DR.)MD.ASHRAF HUSAIN Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12735 of 2008 ASHOKA NAND CHOUDHARY Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12736 of 2008 LALMANI PHALAHARI Versus L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS with CWJC No.12727 of 2008 PRADEEP KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12656 of 2008 SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12665 of 2008 4 NAGESHWAR KHAIRWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12115 of 2008 LALITA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12207 of 2008 RENUKA SAHAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12316 of 2008 LAXMI NARAYAN THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12359 of 2008 SHASHI NATH JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12608 of 2008 ARUN KUMAR THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12528 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12549 of 2008 NAND KISHORE JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12757 of 2008 NARENDRA NARAYAN DAS @ NARENDR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 5 with CWJC No.12762 of 2008 SHATRUGHAN MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12720 of 2008 NIWAS JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12851 of 2008 PROF.SUBHASH MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12868 of 2008 DR.SHYAMA NAND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12891 of 2008 KIRAN KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12892 of 2008 RAM BALAK CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12902 of 2008 RAJENDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12903 of 2008 RADHA GOVIND JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.12904 of 2008 DR.(SMT.)CHITRA RANI DEVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with 6 CWJC No.12908 of 2008 MD.IMRAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ------ For the petitioners: Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, With Mr Rajeev Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh Nawal Kishore Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Subodh kumar Jha, Roshan Kumar Mishra, Nagmani Kumar, Krishna Kumar Anjani Kumar, Jagannath Singh, am Das Singh, Birewndra Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Binodanand Mishra, Gyanand Roy, M.K.POathak, Arun kumar Bhagat, Md Khurshid Alam. Samir Kumar Singh,Arjun Kumar Bhagat, M.K.Pathak, Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocates For the State : SC 2 For the University: Mr T.M.Maitin -------- 2. 01.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the University. The petitioners in this batch of writ applications are teaching and non teaching employees of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University. Suffice it to say that in pursuance of a dispute with regard to regularisation/absorption, certain orders of this Court, when the matter traveled to the Apex Court and was referred to what is euphemistically known as the Agrawal Commission, the petitioners came to be regularised by the order of the Syndicate of the university by order dated 4.7.2005 and in pursuance of which formal orders were issued under the signature of the Registrar. The notification states that the order was pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997, more particularly paragraphs 24 and 26 of the judgement, the orders of this Court in CWJC No. 4021 of 1995 and the relevant government orders in that regard. Subsequently the Vice Chancellor alone acting individually is stated to have issued orders of termination dated 21.6.2008. It again states that the services were being terminated in view of the orders of the 7 Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6098 of 1997. No reasons have been assigned in the order of termination. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners have not been heard and no notice has been issued to them before depriving them of the benefits of the order of absorption of the Syndicate visiting them with civil consequences of termination and that the Vice Chancellor alone was not competent to annul the decision of the Syndicate. Learned Counsel for the University finds it difficult to support an ex-parte order of termination. This Court is satisfied that these writ applications have to be allowed, the order of termination having been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice before depriving the petitioners of the benefits of absorption by the Syndicate after application of mind. No reasons have been assigned making the order arbitrary on both counts. It is trite law that an order in violation of the principles of natural justice is like still a born child. This Court refrains from making any further observations in this context, least it may affect either parties at a subsequent stage in view of the limited nature of the present order. The impugned order canceling their absorption and terminating their services dated 21.6.2008 is accordingly set aside. The applications are allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 8