IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16246 of 2010 Dr.Kumkum Singh, wife of Braj Nandan Singh, resident of Bara Bazar, P.S.- Kotwali, Town and District-Munger. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar, namely, Dr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, namely, Dr. K.N. Dubey. 3. The Pro Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, namely, Dr. Dhrub Kumar. 4. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Hon’ble Chancellor of Universities in Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. -Respondents. ----------- 02 06.10.2010 This is an unfortunate case which really does not involve any legal issue. It has emanated because of conflicting order issued by the University, the Chancellor and in a way compounded by status quo order by this Court. A cloud of confusion was created which no one attempted to clear in a proper and desirable manner and now it is left to this Court to rescue every body. Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the T.M.B. University, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the Chancellor, learned counsel for the intervener whose application is not to be found on record and the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that in the year 2009 a policy to transfer teachers was issued by the office of the Chancellor. Pursuant thereto, the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the year 2009 issued various transfer orders transferring teachers from one constituent College to other and from College to Department etc. It appears that in 2010 the University revisited the issue. The Vice-Chancellor, accordingly, - 2 - issued orders staying his earlier transfer orders of the year 2009. The effect of this was the teachers who had moved pursuant to the transfer orders of 2009 came back by virtue of the stay granted by the Vice- Chancellor himself in the year 2010. The Chancellor intervened and stayed the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the year 2010 staying the transfer orders. The effect was that the 2009 transfer orders got revived. University circulated the order of the Chancellor accordingly to the concerned Principals as well. The petitioner is a Principal of a constituent College at Naugachia under the T.M.B. University. Upon receipt of the University communication, issued pursuant to the orders of the Chancellor, petitioner issued relieving orders, relieving the teachers mentioned in the transfer order to enable them to join the transferred post. This was done on 16.03.2010. In the meantime, large number of teachers, who were victims of this transfer order, cancellation and retransfer, had moved this Court. On 30.03.2010 this Court ordered that status quo should be maintained as of that day. The problem starts now. Some of the teachers appeared to have moved the University because their position had become anomalies. They were in the original College under orders of transfer. They had not relieved themselves to join the new post but were shown to be relieved by the Principal (the petitioner). University constituted a team to ascertain the status of these persons. At that stage University was not advised to move this Court for any clarification nor did those teachers who were parties to the writ petition in which status quo was granted choose to - 3 - move this Court for clarification of their status. The University constituted a Committee on 05.06.2010 to examine the matter. At the instance of the Committee, the University issued notification dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure-5). By this notification, University held and directed that the persons named therein, in view of the status quo order of this Court passed on 30.3.2010, be allowed to rejoin their original place of posting. The order aforesaid relates to different persons of different Colleges and Departments as well. This puts the petitioner in a tight spot. She had on 16.03.2010 relieved some of the teachers, who were under orders of transfer. The status quo order followed on 30.03.2010. Now the University was directing her to permit those persons to rejoin by order of University being issued on 27th July 2010. She represented to the University as to what is to be done but she was also advised to come to this Court for clarification. The later was the right step taken by her. She intervened in the writ petition seeking clarification. This Court heard the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.4229 of 2010 and disposed of by order dated 08.09.2010, noticing intervention of the Principal and noticing that in view of the uncertainty created by transfer, stay of transfer, stay of stay of transfer and status quo granted by this Court, the matter should now be cleared of uncertainty by the Chancellor and it was expected that the Chancellor would act accordingly. But, it appears that before Chancellor could take any action, reactions were there in the University. Petitioner, the Principal was feeling aggrieved by being forced to disobey the status quo order of this Court, the Vice- - 4 - Chancellor was feeling aggrieved as his authority was being undermined by the Principal, the University Officers were aggrieved by the conduct of the Principal, who was not obeying the direct orders of the Vice-Chancellor passed pursuant to the Committee. This friction should have ended if the Chancellor intervened in the matter and cleared the situation. Petitioner’s defence is that she has only wanted to be on the right side of the Court. On the other hand, the Vice-Chancellor felt that certain persons were wrongly shown as relieved and should be permitted to rejoin, notwithstanding the orders of the status quo, as the Vice-Chancellor was only restoring the as it existed. The outcome of this friction was that the petitioner’s financial and administrative power was seized by the impugned order and she was asked to report to the University, effectively transferring her from the College to wherein in the University was not known. In my view, everyone has become over sensitive to a non-issue. If any clarification was required, it should have been sought from the Court because the last confusion if any or if at all was created by this Court by grant of status quo. No one except the petitioner approached this Court. Not even the persons who were party to the writ petition and were affected. They chose not to move this Court instead chose to move the University. In fitness of things, pending final orders from the Chancellor, which I am informed would be taken very soon, if not already taken, the Vice-Chancellor should consider restoring the - 5 - position of the petitioner as the Principal and, consequently, the petitioner would permit the persons, as contained in communication of the order as contained in Annexure-5, to join because on that day when the said writ petition was finally disposed the University had already issued orders to the Principal to accept the rejoining of those persons. In my view, University and Colleges are meant for academics and not as a battle ground for vindicating prestige of individual personalities. Let all parties act accordingly. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)