IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9260 of 2010 1. CHITRANJAN SINGH S/O SHRI NATHUNI PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- DHANGAIN, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 5. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA 6. THE REGISTRAR, VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA 7. THE FINANCE OFFICER VEER KUWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARA *** For the petitioner : Mr Sunil Kr Singh, Advocate For the University : Mr Ajay Behari Sinha, Advocate *** 6 11.10.2010 The petitioner was appointed as a Mathematics Teacher in Shershah College, Sasaram on or about 10.04.1984. This College was then taken over and made a Constituent College of the Veer Kunwar Singh University with effect from 30th April, 1986. Disputes arose as to, inter alia, the teaching staff who would be taken over in University Service as a consequence of the College being made constituent. Ultimately the matter reached the Apex Court. The Apex Court set up Justice S C Agarwal Commission to look into the matter and submit a report. Upon submission of the report to the Supreme Court, objections were heard and the Supreme Court then affirmed the findings of the Agarwal Commission by its judgment in the case of State of Bihar & Others –Versus- Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh & Others since 2 reported in (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129. In substance, what the Apex Court affirmed was the basic three lists as prepared by the Agarwal Commission in respect of each of the four phased Constituent Colleges. The first list related to Teachers who are working on post which had already been sanctioned prior to the cut off date that is 30th of April, 1986. This list had to be implemented and all Teachers appearing in this list had to be automatically absorbed with full benefits. The second list was in relation to those Teachers who are working on post, the proposal for sanction of which had been made by the University to the State Government prior to the cut off date. In some cases, the sanction of post was made after the cut off date and in some cases, the sanction was awaited. In this respect, it was directed that the University would examine the qualification etc and then absorb the petitioner in terms of Section 4 (1) (14) of the Bihar State Universities Act. The third list was of employees found working on non-sanctioned post where sanction was not sought at all before the cut off date. Those employees could not be considered for absorption at all. So far as petitioner is concerned, as per the stand taken by the State and the University before the Agarwal Commission, the Agarwal Commission considered the matter and in specific terms in its Report, clearly stated that so far as the College is concerned, there were four sanctioned posts (probably including posts sanctioned after the cut off date) and gave name of four Teachers including the petitioner out of whom two had already been permanently absorbed and two were to be absorbed. They were in the list of teaching staff who were found eligible 3 for absorption. Thus, we find, as per the report of the Agarwal Commission as accepted by the Apex Court, there being four posts duly sanctioned and four Teachers recommended for absorption, there was left no ambiguity or matter to be considered by the State. The only thing that was to be considered was by the University as to the academic qualification. Upon receipt of the judgment, University issued notification clearly notifying petitioner’s permanent absorption as per directions of the Apex Court. Recently, the State has decided to take a discordant view and ignoring the report of the Agarwal Commission as affirmed by the Apex Court, ignoring the University’s notification in terms of Section 4 (1) (14) of the Act, stopped payment of remuneration to the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court for issuance of mandamus to the University and the State for resumption of his remuneration. Counter affidavit has been filed. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In view of the facts, as noted above, it is not in controversy that petitioner’s name figured in the Agarwal Commission Report for permanent absorption. Only four Teachers were mentioned in the Report as against four sanctioned seats. The relevant part of the Report is quoted hereunder : TEACHING STAFF WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ABSORPTION Number of Name of the Teacher Date of Date of Nature of Post eligibility appointment appointment Sanctioned Subject-wise … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 4 Mathematics Sanctioned 4 1 Sri Babban Prasad Choudhary 01.08.1975 01.08.1975 Permanently Absorbed 2 Sri Chandra Deo Singh 20.12.1977 20.12.1977 Permanently Absorbed 3 Sri Vikrama Singh 10.04.1984 10.04.1984 4 Sri Chitranjan Singh 10.04.1984 10.04.1984 Neither the State nor the University disputes this report and rightly so because this Report is now a part of the judgment of the Apex Court. The University follows the judgment but the State seeks to ignore the judgment. The question is would a mandamus lie in such a situation? In this connection, I may refer to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd –Versus- Income-tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 182 wherein the Apex Court has held as under : “… … … Where the Income-tax Officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous direction which a superior tribunal like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, had given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is on the hierarchy of Courts. In such a case a writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justitiae to compel the Income-tax Officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court would be clearly in error if it refuses to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice had resulted from the order of the Income-tax Officer in view of the error 5 committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice. … … …” The facts that were involved in the case and the decision both are clearly available in the passage undernoted. In view of the aforesaid judgment, in my view, it is not open to the State on any count to dispute the judgment of the Apex Court in any manner. Thus, I have no option but to issue mandamus to the State and the University to deem permanent absorption of the petitioner with effect from 19.03.1986 which date, admittedly, was prior to the date which is 30th of April, 1986. Consequently, let a mandamus issue to the University and the State to ensure payment of full remuneration of the petitioner upto date alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it was due to the date it is paid. The payment shall be made within one month from today. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)