IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.820 of 2001 Dr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, son of Sri Keshari Singh, resident of village Bariarpur, P.S. Dinara, district Rohtas .. Petitioner Versus 1. Veer Kuer Singh University, Ara, through It’s Vice Chancellor 2. The Registrar, Veer Kuer Singh University, Ara 3. Bihar College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna, through it’s Secretary 4. Sri Mathura Prasad Singh, Secretary, , Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas 5. Sri Bacha Singh so called In-Charge, Principal, Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas, Member, Governing Body, , Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas 7. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Doner Member, Governing Body, Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas 8. Sri Ram Ekbal Singh, Member, Governing Body (Teachers’ Representatives), , Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas .. Respondent **** For the petitioner .. M/S S.K. Singh & Sudha Sinha, Advs. For the University .. M/S V.K. Singh & Akhileshwar Singh, Advs. **** /8/ 09.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas, and respondent no. 5, the then In-Charge Principal of Badri 2 Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas. 2. Prayer of the petitioner, in this writ application, was for a direction to the respondents to implement the recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission, dated 18.01.2000, whereby the petitioner’s name was recommended as first recommendee for being appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Geography in Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas. Further, prayer of the petitioner is to declare the action of Governing Body of the college appointing respondent no. 5 as In-Charge Principal of the college as null and void and direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as In-Charge Principal of the said Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas. Another prayer is for direction to pay salary of the petitioner since December, 1985, till date as no salary is being paid to the petitioner. 3. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Geography on 27.12.1985 by the Secretary, Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas. He gave his joining in the college and, thereafter, his service was confirmed by the Secretary of the college on 08.02.1988 with effect from 27.12.1985. The Bihar State College Service 3 Commission also gave concurrence to the appointment of the petitioner on the first post of Lecturer in the Department of Geography in Badri Narayan College, Indore, Rohtas. Consequence to the concurrence given by the College Service Commission, the Governing Body of the college also gave concurrence to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in the Department of Geography and decided to appoint the petitioner on permanent basis from the date of his appointment. The Secretary of the college took a decision on 07.07.1994, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the college in anticipation of the approval of the Governing Body. The petitioner gave his joining as Principal on 07.07.1994 and started working as In- Charge, Principal. In the meantime, post of permanent teacher was advertised by the University. Petitioner appeared for interview. The College Service Commission issued it’s recommendation on 18.01.2001 in which the recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner for being appointed as teacher of Geography in the college. The recommendation should have been implemented within three months as provided under Section 10 of the College Service 4 Commission Act, but, it was not done. The petitioner made several representations, in this regard, but, its all went in vain. The In-Charge, Principal, respondent no. 5, also did not act as per the recommendation of the Commission and finally the petitioner had to come before this Court for a direction to the respondents to implement the recommendation of the College Service Commission. 4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it transpires that Governing Body in it’s meeting, dated 11.01.2001 resolved to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and also to put him under suspension. The Principal of the college by order, dated 19.01.2001, put the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. The principle sent this order for approval on 20.01.2001. 5. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner through, which, the development, which took place during the pendency of the application, has been brought on record. In the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that during the pendency of the writ application the Governing Body of the college sent a resolution, dated 5 18.01.2001, for it’s approval. to respondent University, but, the Inspector of the University vide it’s letter no. 237, dated 08.04.2008, issued a show cause to the college as to why resolution has been sent to the University after seven years. The resolution, dated 18.01.2001, was declared illegal by the University for want of quorum and the matter was remanded back to the Governing Body of the College for recommendation. In pursuance of letter no. 370, dated 27.05.2008, the Chairman of the Governing Body of the college called a meeting on 28.05.2008 and vide proposal no. 8 the petitioner has been exonerated from all the frivolous charges, levelled against him by the previous ad hoc committee. The Governing Body of the college accepting the recommendation of the College Service Commission recommended for appointing the petitioner against the first post in the Department of Geography. The recommendation of the Governing Body has been accepted by the University. The Secretary of the College issued a letter, dated 30.05.2008, accepting the recommendation of the College Service Commission and the petitioner treated as appointed against the post of Lecturer in the Department of Geography. 6 The petitioner’s case is that in spite of his suspension he is continuously worked as Lecturer in the Department of Geography of the concerned college. Now, so far petitioner’s appointment on the first post as Lecturer is concerned, it has been approved and accepted and he is working, his all grievances have been redressed, except that the Governing Body or the University has not passed any order in respect of his arrears and current salary. 6. Considering the orders passed by the Governing Body, the College and the University, it goes without saying that petitioner is entitled for his salary since the date he is continuously working on the post. Petitioner’s case is that he is working since December, 1985, as such, he is entitled for his salary with effect from December, 1985. In case no order has been passed till now, the respondents are directed to pass an order, in this regard, forthwith and make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. 7. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. ) 7