IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5996 of 2010 1. PRATIMA DUTTA W/O DR. BISHNUPAD DUTTA R/O FLAT NO. C-102, RAJ KISHOR COMPLEX, MUL CHANDRA PATH, LOHIANAGAR, P.S. PATRAKARNAGAR, DISTRICT AND TOWN PATNA Versus 1. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 3. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA 4. PRINCIPAL, GANGA DEVI MAHILA COLLEGE, KANKERBAGH, PATNA 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA ----------- 3 16/8/2010 The petitioner is a teacher in Ganga Devi Mahila College, Patna. This college is what is commonly known as fourth phase constituent college and the petitioner’s grievance is with regard to non payment of her salary by the University since 2.2.2008. Petitioner states that her case was duly examined by the Agrawal Committee constituted by the Apex Court and as per direction contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar –v- Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. Mahasangh & ors. Since reported in 2005 (9) SCC 129, she is entitled to payment. This stand is duly accepted by the University after due enquiry, as contemplated under direction of the Supreme Court, yet on a totally misconceived stand, State has suddenly stopped releasing grant of payment for making payment of petitioner and similarly situated persons. The facts 2 are in narrow compass- In the college, in so far as petitioner is concerned, there were two posts of Lecturer sanctioned for Bengali whereas there were Lecturers appointed by the Governing Body. The petitioner was the third appointee. After the judgment of the Apex Court, University scrutinized the appointments and found that earlier appointee was not validly appointed or had vacated the post. In other words, he was not available to claim remuneration at the time of take over of the college.Thus, University found that the petitioner though a third appointee, in terms of the Apex Court would step in, and her appointment is valid. She would accordingly be entitled to payment but the stand of the State is otherwise. It states that the University can scrutinize for invalid occupation of posts but cannot make permanent another person though appointed before the take over day, to claim the vacancy. It is on this ground that the State refuses to make payment for the said position. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of Supreme Court judgment aforesaid, it is clear that the Apex Court has not left any role to the State Government to play in matters of absorption. The Supreme Court has categorically stated that it is for the University to make all enquiry and satisfy itself under Section 4(14) of the Act and those finding would be final . The State’s further stand is that the matter is now pending once again before the Apex Court. In my view, the matter that is 3 pending before the Apex Court has no concern with the present case and the State is creating unnecessary more problem that is not necessary. The State should endeavour to just resolving rather than lingering the matter. Having considered the matter, I direct that in the facts of the present case, State would be bound by the finding of the University and would within fifteen days release the money for payment to the petitioner and her like . The role of the State in terms of section 35 is limited to sanction of post alone. Let a writ be issued accordingly. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)