IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13092 of 2005 BAIDYANATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM SEWAK SINGH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE, AURANGABAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 5. DR. BABAN SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIV MUNI SINGH, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL, J.L.N. COLLEGE, KHAGAUL, DISTRICT PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :- Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar No. 1, Advocate Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate For Res. Nos. 2 to 4 :- Mr. Hans Raj, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nan Lal Singh, Advocate ******* 13 18.3.2011 This writ application has been filed challenging the order passed by the Chancellor of Universities, Bihar contained in Annexure-9 by which the Chancellor has reviewed the order passed on 27.8.2003 in which the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University was directed to relieve the petitioner from the post of Principal in terms of the order of this Court passed on 2 23.4.2003 in CWJC No. 6626 of 2000. I will directly refer to the order of this Court dated 23.4.2003 which sets out the facts connected with this case. The petitioner Baidyanath Singh and Ors. had come to this Court for quashing the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the Magadh University. The dispute arose when the respondent no. 5 Dr. Baban Singh was appointed as the Principal of T.P.S. College, Patna. At that stage, the petitioners and others had also applied for appointment to the post of the Principal. The order appointing respondent no. 5 as a Principal was challenged on the ground that the respondent no. 5 did not possess the required qualifications to be appointed as the Principal, as he did not have 12 years of teaching experience as a Lecturer. The contention of the petitioners was and is that the respondent no. 5 had enrolled himself as an advocate and was practicing law for a period of one and a half years. The stand of the respondent no. 5 is that there is no bar that a Lecturer of an affiliated college cannot practice in the 3 Court. It was stated that although he was appointed as a Lecturer, he never took any salary as a Lecturer from the college authorities though he performed his duty as a Lecturer simultaneously as he was practicing during that period. The matter of appointment of the respondent no. 5 was first challenged by filing CWJC No. 3519 of 1995. This Court after noting down the facts, held that since the matter was pending before the Chancellor, it would be proper that view of the Chancellor should come on record, before this Court entered into the merits of the case. The Chancellor requested Shri R.C.P. Sinha, a retired judge to conduct an enquiry as to whether Dr. Baban Singh had 12 years of teaching experience before he was appointed in the T.P.S. College, Patna. The finding came against the respondent no. 5. The Chancellor accepted the report and directed the Vice-chancellor to take action against respondent no. 5 and to remove him from the post of the Principal. The respondent no. 3 the Vice-chancellor disagreed with the findings of Justice 4 R.C.P. Sinha (Retd.) and informed the Hon’ble Chancellor accordingly. The Hon’ble Chancellor called for an explanation from the Vice-chancellor. The matter kept travelling up and down but ultimately it appears that respondent no. 5 was merely transferred from one college to the other. In the writ application CWJC No. 6626 of 2000, this Court directed that the Vice-chancellor should comply with the order of the Hon’ble Chancellor and in the interim period it was held that respondent no. 5 shall cease to function as a Principal. With respect to the interim order of this Court, Dr. Baban Singh respondent no. 5 filed a S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. Thereafter Dr. Baban Singh filed a review application before the Chancellor of the Universities. The Chancellor heard the respondent no. 5 and on the basis of judgments reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328; 2004 (3) PLJR 674 and (1979) 1 SCC 168 reviewed his earlier order and held that on the basis of the aforesaid judgments, there was no justification for setting aside the appointment of Dr. Baban 5 Singh as he had acquired the requisite experience by working on the post subsequent to his appointment in the year 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. It is submitted that he had not been noticed in the review application and as such the order of review ought to be set aside. It is submitted that he was necessary party as it was on his behest that an order was passed by this court directing the implementation of the earlier order of the Chancellor for removal of respondent no. 5 from the post of Principal. This aspect of the matter has no relevance in view of the fact that the petitioner would not be directly affected with the order and in view of the order which is being passed in this case. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioner is removed as a Principal, he would obviously be considered for the post as he was an applicant for the said post. As far as the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court cannot pass any order giving any 6 relief to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has now retied as well as for the reason that apart from the petitioner there were five other persons who had filed the writ application and would perhaps also be a contender for the post of the Principal as such no substantive relief can be granted to this petitioner on this score. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order of review has been passed to circumvent the order of the Court. At this stage, I may observe that this Court has at no stage passed any order with respect to the claim or the merit of the case of respondent no. 5 vis a vis the petitioner and others. This Court had merely observed its anguish, that despite there being the order of the Chancellor of the Universities, the then Vice-chancellor had taken no steps to ensure implementation. What was required to be implemented was the order of the Chancellor accepting the report of one man committee for removal of the respondent no. 5 from the post of the Principal. The order of the Chancellor now 7 stands reviewed, therefore, this Court would go into the merits of the order of the Chancellor. Counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. (Sushri) Ranni Bala Agrawal Vs. L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga & Ors. reported in 1992 (1) PLJR 596. In this case the question before this Court was whether the experience of 7 years in a degree college would be taken into account for holding that the petitioner of the writ application had the required experience. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and the appointment was to be confirmed by the Commission. The Commission had not confirmed the appointment and as such the Court decided against her. It is submitted that the law laid down aforesaid would be applicable to the case of respondent no. 5 as his experience for the said period that he was appointed cannot be taken into account for the purposes of holding that he had the due qualification of 12 years of experience. Contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench, the judgment referred to by the 8 counsel for the respondent in the case of Ram Sarup Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1979) 1 SCC 168] holds the contrary view. The Supreme Court has held that the appointment of a person who does not have the minimum experience required for a particular post automatically will be regularized, on the candidate acquiring the required experience by virtue of working holding the post in question. Reversion after completing the minimum requirement of work experience would, therefore, be invalid. Similar is the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. Abahi Kumar & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328 and a case decided by the Patna High Court in the case of Uday Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) PLJR 675. Considering the judgments aforesaid, I find no illegality in the order of the Chancellor. This writ application is thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)