IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.12235 OF 2004 SAHENDRA SINGH, SON F LATE BRAHMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MATIA, POST OFFICE DESHARI, DISTRICT VAISHALI ………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR,BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, BIRCHAND PATEL SMARAK COLLEGE, DESHARI, VAISHALI 4. THE GOVERNING BODY OF BIRCHAND PATEL SMARAK COLLEGE, DESHARI, VAISHALI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 5. SABITA KUMARI, WIFE OF AJIT KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHALOLPUR, POST OFFICE BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** 3 09/12/2010 The petitioner claims that he was the founder teacher of Birchand Patel Smarak College, Deshari, Vaishali, one of the affiliated colleges of Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University and was working as Professor-in-charge. All of a sudden, vide Annexure-1, the Dsitrict Development Commissioner being the Secretary of the Selection Committee has appointed one Sabita Kumari in the department of Psychology as the Professor- in-charge of the said college. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order dated 24.07.2004 on the ground that Sabita Kumari is much junior to the petitioner inasmuch as she was appointed in the year 1996 and the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987. The petitioner also claims that he has higher qualifications to the respondent no. 5. 2 By a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the letter dated 03.11.2004 which is at Annexure-18 of the writ application, which indicates that Sabita Kumari, wife of Ajit Kumar Singh was appointed as Aanganbari Sevika vide letter no. 179 dated 19.06.1996. This Court finds that the order as contained in Annexure-1 is cryptic. Counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 although she was noticed and is being represented through the Counsel. Counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that the Selection Committee is competent to appoint the Professor-in-charge of affiliated colleges. The said appointment is subject to the approval of the University. Counsel is unable to state whether the approval was given to Annexure 1 or not. This Court finds that the order is cryptic and prima facie cannot be justified. In the result, I quash the order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 24.07.2004 and remit the matter back to the Selection Committee. The petitioner would have the liberty to take steps to bring the order of this Court before the Committee, who will pass an appropriate order after considering all the criteria, which are essential for appointment of Professor-in-charge of the said college, 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )