IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19732 of 2010 The Governing Body of R.P.S. College, Patna through its Secretary Kumar Pritanjay, son of Late R.P. Sharma, resident of 1-B Patliputra Colony, PS Patliputra, District Patna – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar. (2) The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. (3) The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. (4) The Inspector of College (Science), Magadh University Service Commission, Bodh Gaya – Respondents. … For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocates and Mr. Brisketu Saran Pandey, Advocate. For the University: Mr. Hans Raj, Advocate. For Interveners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. … 6 5.5.2011 Annexure 3 was issued by the Vice Chancellor of Magadh University, Both Gaya in compliance with an order passed by this court in CWJC No. 6294/2010, disposed of on 13.4.2010 in which this court held that the University should constitute a regular governing body for R.P.S. College, New Bailey Road, Patna. The dispute has arisen because of the fact that the committee that was constituted on 17.6.2010 has been dissolved and an ad hoc committee has been constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 26.11.2011. The petitioner challenges the constitution of the ad hoc committee on the ground that the order has not been passed in accordance with section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act and Statute 32 issued by the State Government which relates to the management and constitution of the governing body. Section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) envisages that the governing body for the 2 management and administration of each affiliated college should consist of members as mentioned in sub-sections (ii) and (iv) of section 60 which provides that the Vice Chancellor shall constitute an ad hoc committee for the management of a college so long as the governing body is not constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (i). Sub-section (iv) obviously deals with the constitution of an ad hoc committee when there is no regular committee because of the reasons that it has been dissolved whereas sub-clause 3 of Statute 32 reads as follows : “3 (1) The terms of office of the members of the Governing Body other than teacher member and University Representatives shall be for a period of 3 years from the date of their election, nomination or Corporation, as the case may be, and shall include any further periods not exceeding 3 months that may elapse between the expiry of their terms and the next election, nomination or co-option. The term of officers of the University Representative and teacher member shall be for a period of one academic session. “Provided that term of office of any member other than ex-officio member may be terminated, any time, by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice chancellor if the continuance of the member is not in the interest of the college.” Sub clause 3 clearly indicates that the life of the governing body would be three years and the terms of office of the University representative and the teacher members shall be for one academic session. 3 Sub Clause 28 of Statute 32 provides the manner in which the governing body can be suspended or dissolved and the manner in which the grants in aid can be cancelled. Sub-clause 28 reads as follows : “28.(1) The Syndicate may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice Chancellor (i) suspend the Governing Body for a specific period or (ii) dissolve a Governing Body and order its reconstitution, or (iii) cancel grant-in-aid to the college concerned, if in the opinion of the Syndicate any such action is necessary to be taken for any one or more of the following reasons:- (a) that the college has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Syndicate under the laws of the University within a specific time, (b) That the college has failed to observe the provisions of the laws of the University, (c) That the accounts of the grants made to the college have been improperly utilized, and (d) That the affairs of the college in the opinion of the Syndicate have been grossly mismanaged: “Provided, however, that the before ordering suspension; or dissolution of the Governing Body or before passing any other order indicated above the Syndicate shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to show cause against such action.” Clause 28 therefore envisages that the Syndicate on 4 its own motion or on the basis of a reference made by the Vice Chancellor can suspend the governing body for a specific period or dissolve the governing body and order its reconstitution or cancel grants in aid. The provisions of clause (28) is clear when it states that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the governing body to show cause against such action. The facts of this case disclose that the regular governing body was constituted on 17.6.2010 after which it was dissolved and an ad hoc governing body was constituted on 26.11.2010. An objection has been raised that the members of the ad hoc committee have not been made party to the writ petition. I may point out that the members, the Government representative and the donor members are common in both the regular committee and the ad hoc committee constituted vide Annexure 1. It is only the people‟s representative and the educationist, i.e. persons mentioned in item 2 and 3 of annexure 1 who are strangers to the regular committee. At this juncture I may also mention that the people‟s representative and the educationist as mentioned at Annexure 1 were also the members of the earlier ad hoc committee. I do not think it essential or necessary to make them party, in view of the challenge raised in this writ petition. The grounds for challenging annexure 1, the newly constituted ad hoc committee is that it has been done within a period of three months without giving any show cause notice as envisages under the Statutes. The second ground of challenge is that the Vice Chancellor has constituted the ad hoc committee 5 without the approval of the Syndicate. In fact the Vice Chancellor did not refer the matter to the Syndicate for the purpose of dissolution of the regular governing body which is against the Statues. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University in which it has been stated that there are serious allegations against the Sri Kumar Pritanjay, the Secretary. The Vice Chancellor is said to have conducted enquiry. The allegations levelled are not part of the records of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University. The enquiry is also not annexed which may substantiate the case of the University. In any case even if this court accepts that the facts stated are on affidavit and are, therefore, correct, an opportunity ought to have been given to the persons concerned, at the stage of holding the enquiry. An ex parte enquiry against one member of the governing body, cannot form the basis of dissolving the regular committee. In this case, one of the teachers of the college has filed an intervention application in which several allegations have been made with respect to the manner in which the governing body performs its duties. The allegations shortly stated are, that the governing body has not forwarded the name of teachers of the college for the purpose of receiving grants from the Government which was questioned on the floor of the Assembly. I may point out that these allegations are levelled against the erstwhile committee and not the present petitioner, as they have had no time to function. It is also pointed out that in fact the managing 6 committee convened a meeting required under the law and directed by the University vide Annexure 4 to appoint a Secretary and the President for the governing body. It is said that the forum was not complete as the peoples representative had resigned before the meeting could have been convened and he was only replaced on 6.10.2010, whereas the meeting took place on 14.7.2010. The interest of the intervenor is with respect to the good management of the college. Good management requires persons at the helm of the affairs who are competent and can handle management and administration of the college. The intervenor cannot be permitted to be added as party in this writ petition as his course of action is separate and distinct to the cause of action for which the present writ petition has been filed. Therefore, I reject the intervenor‟s application. In this context it has been pointed out that Sri Neeraj Kumar Singh, the present intervenor had filed a public interest litigation claiming therein that the court should direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to enquire and investigate the property and assets of Patna Educational Development Trust which is running many educational institutions on forged and fraudulent documents. The college in question is also run by the aforesaid Trust. In the facts stated aforesaid and the law with respect to formation of a governing body this court concludes that the dissolution of the regular committed as contained in Annexure 3 issued by memo no. 216, dated 17.6.2010 was not proper and in 7 accordance with law. The consequence of the aforesaid fact is that the ad hoc committee subsequently formed by the Vice Chancellor vide memo no. 231, dated 26.11.2010 is not justified as it was not formed in accordance with law, not having the sanction of the Syndicate of the Magadh University. Accordingly the order contained in Annexure 1 is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)