IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1040 of 2009 SHYAM SUNDER TULSYAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the appellant: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, ..........Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ravi Verma, A.C. to G.P.-15. For the Chancellor: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, .....Advocate. ----------- 04. 26.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Chancellor, Learned counsel for the University and learned counsel for the State. The appellant preferred a writ petition on account of a notification from Governor Secretariat dated 18.08.2005 contained in Annexure-38 to the writ petition whereby in the capacity of Chancellor of Universities in Bihar, in exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 12(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Chancellor ordered that the appellant will cease to be Pro-Vice Chancellor of Magadh University with immediate effect. The said notification contained some of relevant facts with a conclusion that the appellant’s continuance as Pro-Vice Chancellor of Magadh University was not in the interest of the University. 2 Originally the writ petition was dismissed ex parte as learned counsel for the appellant who was the writ petitioner could not appear on 12.03.2008. That order shows that the writ Court noticed that the writ petitioner was appointed as Pro-Vice Chancellor on 9th October, 2003 but his service was dispensed with on 18.08.2005, a little more than two years after his appointment. The writ Court further noticed that tenure of Pro-Vice Chancellor under Section 12(2) of the Act is for a period of three years or till the pleasure of the Chancellor of the University whichever is earlier. Since from the date of appointment on 9th October, 2003 the period of three years had expired long back which was the normal tenure if the pleasure doctrine had not been invoked by the Chancellor, the writ Court presumed that counsel has not appeared because of expiry of the normal tenure of appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter the writ petitioner (appellant herein) preferred a Civil Review No. 224 of 2008, which has been dismissed by order under appeal dated 25.03.2009. After 3 considering the submission that the appellant could not have been deprived of his normal tenure of three years without giving him benefit of full fledge defence against some allegations made against him by the then Vice Chancellor of the University, the Court held on the basis of judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ras Lal Yadav V. State of Bihar and others which was affirmed by the Apex Court also as reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. S.C. 76, that the pleasure doctrine available in this case was applicable and not the principles embodied under Section 311 of the Constitution of India. It has been argued in substance that had there been no allegation against the appellant, under the pleasure doctrine his tenure could have been legally curtailed but the position would be different because a conflict has arisen between the appellant and the then Vice Chancellor and once show cause notice had been given to the appellant, the Chancellor was obliged to decide the issues involved by a reasoned order so as to either hold the appellant guilty of the charges or to exonerate him but he could not have resorted to his power available under 4 Section 12(2) of the Act and removed him before his normal tenure of three years. We find no good reason to water down the doctrine of pleasure. Such a doctrine is applied generally where the beneficiary of an appointment comes to occupy the post through doctrine of pleasure and not by competition with other eligible candidates. Following the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Ras Lal Yadav, we find no good reason to interfere with the views taken by the writ Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. We need not add anything further because the writ Court has already clarified that the order of the chancellor shall not amount to any stigma against the appellant. Mkr. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)