IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11853 of 2009 DR.RAMAN BIHARI SINHA 'RAMAN' Versus V.C.,BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR, BIHAR UNIVERSITY & ORS. ----------- 2 9.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide notification dated 4.3.2009 issued by the Vice Chancellor of Baba Saheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar, Bihar University several persons like Officials of the University, Government Officials and Legislatures have been notified to be members of the Governing Bodies of the colleges, details of which are available in annexure-10 to the writ application. Petitioner is concerned with what is known as B.P.S. College, Desari in the District of Vaishali. He claims himself to be the Principal of the college and had decided to challenge the said notification or the nominations of the concerned representatives on several grounds stating therein that they are not in accordance with the statute. With regard to the University representative Dr. Satish Patel he states that he belongs to an affiliated college and is holding the post of lecturer and therefore he is illegible. So far as the Government Official is concerned i.e. S.D.O., Mahnar he maintains silence but with regard to Legislature Sri Nitya Nand Rai, M.L.A. it is alleged that he does not belong to the place where the college is situated. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to section 60 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as well as the Statute No. 32 regarding Governing - 2 - Bodies and Constitution of the Statute. From the plain reading of both the provisions the Court is not satisfied that there is a bar to lecturer of affiliated college being nominated/ appointed as a college representative. So far the nomination of MLA is concerned it is not disputed that he belongs to the district where the college is situated. It is another thing that he may not be a person where the college is situated. As per the statute, only preference is to be given to those persons who belong to the place where college is situated. Another argument which has been made is that the process of filling up the posts of representative has not been carried out within the specific time frame. But the Court also notices that the responsibility for doing the same lies on the shoulder of the Principal of the College. If he has failed do so for whatever reason he has to explain. This is not a ground to interfere with notification in question. This Court also fails to understand as to why the Principal has grievance against such nomination. Obviously all is not well which has compelled him to file the writ. This writ application is misplaced one and therefore is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)