IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.121 of 2006 1. Rama Kant Mishra son of late Shashi Kant Mishra, resident of village Narayan Patti, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. 2. Raj Kumar Rai son of late Ruplal Rai, resident of village Sibipatti P.S. Raj Nagar District Madhubani. 3. Radha Kant Singh son of late Ram Prakash Singh @ Prakash Singh, resident of village Simri P.S. Rajnagar Distt. Madhubani. 4. Bhubneshwar Jha son of Chandra Shekhar Jha, resident of village Narayanpatti, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani. 5. Bhawan Chandra Jha son of late Pitamber Jha, resident of village Narayanpatti, P.S. Raj Nagar, District Madhubani.] 6. Uttam Lal Yadav @ Uttam Yadav son of late Sukhedeo Yadav, resident of village Hirapatti, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. … Plaintiffs- Appellants- Appellants. Versus 1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University Darbhanga. 2. The Vice- Chancellor Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 3. The Registrar Lalit Narayan Mithila Universityh, Darbhanga. 4. Principal, Bisheshwar Singh Janta Mahavidyalaya, Raj Nagar P.S. Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. … Defendants- Respondents- Respondents. 5. Hari Shankar Jha son of late Madhav Jha, resident of village- Simri, P.S. Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. 6. Md. Isa Answari @ Isa Dafteri son of late Md. Gozan, resident of village- Satghara, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Rajnagar, District- Madhubani. 7. Amar Nath Jha son of Sri Ram Bhushan Jha, resident of village Chichri Bujurg P.S. Raj Nagar Districdt Madhubani. 8. Ram Pukar Rai son of Nathuni Rai, resident of village Patwara, P.S. Rajnagar, District Madhubani. … Plaintiffs- Appellants- Respondents. ----------- 9/ 18-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by some of 2 the plaintiffs—appellants- appellants challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 22 of 1994 which was filed by the appellants along with some other plaintiffs who are respondents 2nd set in this second appeal for declaration that plaintiffs were Class-3 and Class-4 employees of B.S. Janta College, Raj Nagar, under L.N.Mithila University and they are entitled to be absorbed in the service of the University which should be directed to pay salary to the plaintiffs and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was dismissed on contest with cost by the learned Munsif 1st, Madhubani by judgment and decree dated 28.02.1996 which was challenged by the plaintiffs in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1996 ( 23/1997) but the said title appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-4th , Madhubani by his judgment and decree dated 13.09.1999. The aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal filed by some of the plaintiffs. 5. The claim of the Appellants is that the plaintiffs were appointed by the Managing Committee of the said College whereafter they joined and rendered their services but subsequently in the year 1981 it was made a constituent unit of the aforesaid University and its employees were to be absorbed by the University, but although the plaintiffs furnished the required informations, but no such order as required was passed by the University nor any salary was paid to them nor even they were allowed 3 to sign the attendance register on the ground that the list of sanctioned employees did not include them. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs filed representation to the Registrar of the University for regularization of their services and payment of their salary but no step was taken and hence the plaintiffs moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10533 of 1992 and thereafter they were advised to seek a remedy in the suit and hence the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 6. So far the abovementioned C.W.C.J.No. 10533 of 1992 is concerned, the same was filed by the plaintiffs for a direction to the respondents to regularize their services in Class-3 and Class-4 posts in Bisheshwar Singh Janta College, Rajnagar, Madhubani. However, after hearing both the parties and after considering the entire matters in detail, this court found that there was a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioners were at all appointed by the erstwhile governing body of the College. Earlier this Court, while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 24986 of 1985 filed by some other similarly situated persons, had also found that such a disputed question of fact could not be determined in a writ petition and thus, the petitioners should take recourse to an alternative remedy by way of filing a suit pursuant to which the petitioners of the said writ petition filed a suit in the Civil court bearing Title Suit No. 72 of 1986. Hence vide order dated 23.02. 1994 the above mentioned writ petition filed by the plaintiffs of this case, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10533 of 1992 was also dismissed by this Court on the ground that it involved serious disputed question of facts and also on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. 4 7. The learned courts below very carefully considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties whereafter they came to the specific conclusion that the entire case of the plaintiffs was based on Ext. 2 series and Ext. 3 series. Ext. 2 series were the alleged appointment letters said to have been issued by the Managing Committee with the signature of the Secretary of the College, namely, Dewanand Jha, which were proved by P.Ws. 6 and 7 and according to them the said appointment letters were filled up by P.W.-9, Balnath Jha, the then Principal of the College. Admittedly the Managing Committee of the College consisted of seven members whose names were mentioned by the said Principal ( P.W.-9) but it did not include the name of P.W. 9 . Hence he was clearly not a member of the Managing Committee but even then according to his statement, he not only participated in the meeting but he also filled up the appointment letters ( Ext. 2 series). No reason has been assigned as to why the said P.W.-9, Principal, was so much instrumental and interested in the appointment of the plaintiffs that he even filled up all the appointment letters having no authority for the same. It was also found by the learned courts below that there were many cuttings, over-writings and unfilled blanks in the said Ext.2 series which made them unreliable and not prepared in the ordinary course of official business. Furthermore, even according to the plaintiffs’ witnesses, including P.W. 9, the then Principal of the College, all the sanctioned posts in the College had already been filled up by the University and there was no sanctioned post of Class-3 or Class-4 employees vacant and hence the learned courts below rightly came to 5 the conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot be said to have been appointed even irregularly on the sanctioned posts. It was also found after considering the evidence of the parties by the learned courts below that after appointment of the present Principal ( P.W.-3), the earlier Principal- Incharge ( P.W.- 9) of the College started acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the College and in collusion with his brother-in-law, who was the then Secretary of the Managing Committee, issued Ext. 2 series in favour of the plaintiffs for unsanctioned post without any advertisement and without observing any other procedure prescribed in law for making such appointments.The learned courts below also found from the evidence of the parties that the plaintiffs completely failed to prove that they were ever paid a single farthing for their claim of service during the year 1980-81 which falsified their claim of payment by the College. 8. So far Ext.3 series are concerned, they are joining letters of the plaintiffs submitted in the college at the time of joining in the said College but the said papers were expected to be in the custody of the College itself and not in the custody of the plaintiffs but strangely enough the said joining letters ( Ext. 3 series ) were produced by the plaintiffs and were made exhibits on their behalf. This clearly shows the collusion of the then authorities with the plaintiffs and also indicates that Ext. 2 series and Ext. 3 series are illegal, collusive and manufactured documents and which cannot be relied. 9. So far the question of jurisdiction of the court is concerned, section 80 (A) of the Bihar State Universities 6 Act, 1976 specifically provides that no law suits and proceedings shall lie in Civil courts with respect to the implementation of the provision of this Act, Statutes, Ordinance or Regulations. This provision was inserted in the aforesaid Act by the Amending Act No. 60 of 1982, i.e., much prior to the raising of the claim by the plaintiffs before the authorities of the University and even the filing of the writ case or the suit. Since it is not in dispute that this matter is clearly with respect to the implementation of the provisions of the said Act, Statutes , Ordinance and Regulations, the said provision will be applicable to the instant case also. This Court in an earlier decision in case of Miss Krishna Bala Sinha Vrs. Smt. Manju Verma and others, reported in 1995 (1) P.L.J.R. 314 specifically held that when a bar of section 80 (A) of the Act is applicable, second appeal cannot be said to be maintainable and has to be dismissed. 10. It is also a well settled principle of law as enshrined in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Baijnath Sao Vrs. Ram Prasad, reported in A.I.R. 1951 Patna- 529 that in spite of any bar under the Act the Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to decide the matter when the order passed by the authorities is without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the Act. However, in the instant case it has been specifically found by the learned courts below that it is no where the case of the plaintiffs that the forum or tribunal or the authorities of the University had passed any order which can be said to be without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in them. It was further held that it was 7 also not the case of the plaintiffs that the forum or tribunal or the authorities of the University has acted in such a manner and had not complied the provisions of the Act violating the fundamental principles of judicial procedures. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that the instant litigation is beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court and hence the claim, suit and appeals of the plaintiffs are not maintainable on this ground also. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does this Court find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed as this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. B.Tiwary/ ( S.N.Hussain, J )