IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6548 of 2004 SHYAM KUMAR DWIVEDI, son of Sri Dr. Bachaspati Dwivedi, at present working as Lecturer in Economics in Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk Patna City, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga through its Registrar, Sri Chauthi Sadai 2. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga 3. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga 4. The Governing Body, Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk, Patna City District Patna through its Secretary 5. Sri Brahma Nand Chaturvedi son of Sri Parmatma Choubey, at present posted as Incharge Principal of Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk Patna City, District Patna … Respondents ----------- 4. 2.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University as also respondent no.5 the In-charge Principal. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in Memo No. 8824/02 issued under the signature of Registrar of the University whereby and whereunder the so called appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of In-charge principal has been approved from the date of his taking over the 2 charge without verifying the records of the College and University and by ignoring the bare facts that respondent no.5 is junior to at least 5 teachers of the College. (ii) Issuance of further writ in the nature of quo-warranto holding the appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of In-charge Principal void ab initio. (iii) Issuance of a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to declare the services of the petitioner as senior most teacher of the college namely Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk, Patna City. (iv) Issuance of an appropriate direction to respondents particularly the respondents no. 4 and 5 to produce the copy of appointment order issued in favour of respondent no.5 and on production of such order the same be quashed declaring it void ab initio. (v) Issuance of an appropriate declaration that the respondent no.5 does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment of Incharge principal nor he is entitled to the said post nor he is discharging the duty of incharge 3 Principal in its true spirit as reported by the then Secretary of Governing Body of the College and as such, he is fit to be removed from the said post. (vi) Issuance of an appropriate declaration that once the respondent University has itself rejected the claim of respondent no.5 for his payment of salary etc. for the period 5.4.1995 to 17.8.2000 on the ground that during those period his service was not proper for want of concurrence and the university itself has approved his service w.e.f. 18.8.2000 on initial pay of Lecturer, there is no justification in granting approval of his provisions laid down under the statute of the University particularly when his certificates are itself doubtful. Thus, the letter dated 14.5.2002 whereby charge has been harded over to respondent no.5 is fit to be quashed.” With regard to the aforementioned prayer learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the University has committed not only an error but a gross irregularity in giving some sort of a permanency by way of approving the services 4 of respondent no.5 in capacity of In-charge Principal of Seth Ram Niranjan Das Murarka Sanskrit College, Chowk, Patna City. He would submit that neither under the Act nor under the Statute there is any provision for In-charge Principal and in fact it is only by way of temporary measure that such arrangement can be allowed by the University. He would submit that the petitioner being a teaching employee of the College and finding the work of the College to be affected on account of such In-charge Principal has filed this writ application, inasmuch as he is also personally aggrieved on account of stoppage of payment of salary by respondent no.5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the University would submit that when the resolution of the Governing body dated 27.7.2002 was received, that by itself was by way of temporary appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of Professor In- charge and therefore, when the Syndicate of the University only has approved the same it never intended to give permanency to the continuance of respondent no.5 beyond a 5 period of six months as the same is not permissible under the Act and the Statute. He, however, would submit that strictly speaking the Governing Body is the whole and sole in respect of appointment to be made on the teaching and non-teaching employee of the affiliated college and therefore, the University cannot do much as it may amount to interference. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 would submit that the present writ application is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioner is not in any way the competent person who could have challenged the assignment of duty of the In-charge Principal of the College, especially when the petitioner himself has been absenting from the College for quite some time. In the opinion of this Court as in the earlier writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 552/2004 the petitioner had raised this issue with regard to his stoppage of payment of salary at the instance of respondent no.5 and it was found that partly his relief sought was sustainable, this Court would go 6 to hold that on account of situation being faced by the petitioner he had right to maintain this writ application challenging continuance of respondent no.5 after a period of six months as the same is not permissible in law. It is well settled that the Principal of a College is also a teaching post and section 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act mandates any appointment on the post of any of the teaching employees to be made without recommendation of the Bihar College Service Commission at best for a period of six months. Beyond that period the Governing Body has to advertise that post and get the same filled up as per Act and Statute. In Sanskrit University under its Statutes there is a special provision which enables the University to approve such appointment made by the Governing Body and that is how the University at least in the present case is not powerless to direct the Governing Body to fill up the post of the Principal on permanent basis. That being so, this Court would 7 direct the University to take appropriate measures for ensuring that the post of Principal in the College is filled up on a permanent basis in terms of the Act and the Statute within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Now that the College Service Commission has already been dissolved and its power has been vested in the University, it would not be difficult for the University in this case to ensure that the Governing Body of the College makes permanent arrangement for the post of Principal in question which is at least for the last eight years going on with only an In-charge Principal. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/