IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8183 of 2001 BINAY KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Surya Narain Singh, resident of Hajipur, Patel Chowk, Ward No.1, P.S. Khagaria Town, District- Khagaria …….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna 2.Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 3.Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 4.Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur 5.Principal, Koshi College, Khagaria ……… Respondents. ----------- 5. 14/09/2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of letter no.289 dated 23.9.1999 issued under the signature of Finance Officer of the respondent University staying payment of salary of the petitioner and others for the time being (rRdky). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said letter, annexed as Annexure-10 to this writ application, salary of the petitioner and others were ordered to be stopped for the time being on the ground that they were not appointed on duly created post. He submits that after the said communication, no - 2 - action has been taken by the respondents to enquire with regard to the circumstances in respect of the appointment of the petitioner and validity thereof. He submits that without any enquiry and without any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, salary of the petitioner was stopped and no further enquiry has been held to come to a final conclusion as to whether petitioner was appointed legally and whether he was entitled to his salary or not. He submits that in spite of passage of more than ten years, matter is at stand still at the University level and no final order has been passed by the competent authority of the University with regard to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the University submits that on the earlier orders of the Chancellor, salary of those persons, who were found to be working on unsanctioned post or who were found to have been appointed illegally, were stopped. He submits that the documents available on the records of this case show that the petitioner was not legally appointed. He further submits that the Principal had no authority to appoint the petitioner and payment - 3 - of salary to the petitioner was in violation of section 35 of the Universities Act. Pointing out some details, he submits that in fact only 11 posts of Class IV was available in the College whereas name of the petitioner finds place at serial no.13. In view of the report submitted by the Principal, the University had asked the Principal with regard to the details of posts available in the staffing pattern in the College and the incumbents working there, to which the Principal has not replied. He submits that in the year 2005 fresh instructions were received from the Chancellor on the basis of which scrutiny was made with regard to appointment of Class IV and daily wages incumbents in various colleges of the University and after scrutiny available posts were identified and against that names were recommended for their regularization to the State Government which were approved and persons so regularized against available vacancies are working. He submits that the petitioner was not found working against any validly sanctioned and available post and therefore, his service has not been regularized and no order for payment of his salary has been - 4 - passed. He further submits that the petitioner was working on daily wages and therefore there was no need for passing any order of termination of his service. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in reply draws the attention of this Court to an order of the Chancellor passed in the case of one Akhil Kumar Singh, annexed as Annexure-16 to the reply to the counter affidavit, to show that one person whose salary was also stopped by impugned Annexure-10 had moved the Chancellor and the Chancellor by a reasoned order had found his appointment as valid. He submits that the petitioner’s case is also identical to the said Akhil Kumar Singh but the respondents have not taken care to examine the case of the petitioner to come to a final conclusion in the matter. In view of the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the materials available on record, at least, this much is established that the impugned order, Annexure-10, informing the Principal to stop salary of the petitioner was only temporary order. The word “rRdky” mentioned in Annexure-10 - 5 - shows that the order of stoppage of payment of salary of the petitioner was passed for the time being, obviously pending enquiry about validity of the appointment of the petitioner. It is also established that the respondents have completely forgotten to enquire about the case of the petitioner after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to establish his claim in respect of validity of his appointment and his entitlement for continuing in service of the University and for payment of his salary. Apparently, there is complete absence of compliance of principles of natural justice in the case. For ten years petitioner’s fate has been left hanging without taking any final decision and communicating the same to the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent University is general in nature and does not in any way show that the case of the petitioner was ever examined and considered and any final decision was taken in the matter after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent University that petitioner was working on daily wages and therefore there was no need for - 6 - passing any order of termination of his service is contrary to Annexure-10 itself which shows that monthly allocations were made for payment of salary. In view of the facts and circumstances as noticed above, this Court has no option but to quash Annexure-10. The Court gives liberty to the University to enquire with regard to the service conditions of the petitioner if it chooses to do so even now and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter take final decision with regard to the validity of his appointment and his continuance in service. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be entitled to his salary of the period till a final decision is taken by the University and communicated to the petitioner. This writ application is accordingly allowed with the above observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)