IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3982 of 1993 KAPILDEO SHARMA Versus V.C.,KAMESHWAR SINGH SANSKRIT ---------- For petitioner:- Mr. Ashok Kr. Keshri For University:- Mr. S.C. Mishra 4 5.8.2008 The petitioner was working on the post of a Head Clerk in a college namely Jagjeevan Avoudaya Sanskrit College falling under Sri Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. His salary as a Head Clerk was stopped and one Vijoy Kumar Singh was declared to be the Head Clerk of the said college. Petitioner being aggrieved with the decision of the then Managing Committee filed C.W.J.C. No. 3880 of 1991 before this Court which was disposed of on 30.10.1992 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar Sanskrit University regarding the grievances raised in the writ application. Accordingly the petitioner filed the representation which has been disposed of by the impugned order by the Vice-chancellor contained in annexure-1 dated 22.2.1993. The Vice-chancellor while examining the documents has found that the petitioner was appointed on 2 1.7.1977 whereas Vijoy Kumar Singh was appointed on 1.7.1969. However, it appears that a letter was produced during the hearing before the Vice-chancellor which was signed by the petitioner accepting the fact that Vijoy Kumar Singh was appointed prior to him. On examining documents of the college the Vice- chancellor came to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the college, whereas the impugned order states that there is no documents to show that Vijoy Kumar Singh was present and working in the college. The Vice-chancellor after coming to the finding that the petitioner was working in the college on the post of a Clerk since 1.7.1977 took around about turn and began to examine the decision of the Managing Committee as far as it related to the appointment of this petitioner. The petitioner or the person representing the petitioner i.e. his advocate before the Vice-chancellor was neither prepared nor aware about the matters that were raised before the Vice-chancellor. According to the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was appointed while he was still student of the 3 college and at the age of about 15½ years on the post of a Clerk. It is not denied that the petitioner worked continuously since the date of appointment and the only dispute that had arisen was between the petitioner and one Vijoy Kumar Singh regarding the seniority between the two. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner was appointed while he was still student and was about 15½ years of age it has been held by the impugned order that his appointment is not in accordance with law and the proper procedure was not followed while appointing the petitioner. I cannot say that the Vice-chancellor did not have the power to examine the documents belonging to the college and give his own conclusion with respect to any matter regarding the administration of the college. However, I do think it is unjustified to pass an order of termination on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State was not able to point out any rule or enactment which deals with the cut off age for the purpose of appointment in the 4 University. It is well settled that in the absence of any provision of law for the Universities in Bihar, the provisions relating to services of State Employees would govern the field. Chapter IV of the Bihar Pension Rules, deals with service Qualifying For Pension. Section 57 of Chapter IV reads as follows: 57. “A Government servant in inferior service, shall not begin until the Government servant concerned attained the age of 16 years.” This provision provides that the service of a Government servant will count from the date on which he attains the age of 16 years. The Cut off date has been amended in the Bihar Pension Rules and extended to 18 years later. I find that it is completely unjustified to terminate the petitioners service on the ground that petitioner was below 18 years on the date of his appointment. The order of termination is also not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has served the college and worked uninterruptedly for about 25 years and without issuing any show cause or giving the petitioner an opportunity, 5 the said order of termination has been passed. In the result I quash the order dated 22.2.1993 terminating the services of the petitioner. Having quashed the order of termination issued vide annexure-1, the petitioner would be allowed to continue to work as a Clerk of the college in question. The authorities of the College University will treat the period of termination as period in service and it should be counted for all practical purposes for future emoluments and payment of retiral dues, time bound promotion etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner’s order of termination was unjustified he should be paid his salary from 22.2.1993. It is submitted that the petitioner had to face great hardship and financial crisis in the intervening period and as such I direct that the petitioner should be paid his salary for the period he was illegally kept out of service. The writ application is allowed without costs. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)