IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.848 of 2008 DR.ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAM KISHIRE SHARMA, RESIDENT OF TALPA KOTHI, KADAMKUAN, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT- PATAN. ......PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, ASHOK RAJPATH, PATNA. 3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THOURGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ...........RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Amit Kuamr Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Kuamr Singh, Adv. For the Patna University:- Mr. Ajay Bihari Singh, Adv. 8 03.05.2011 The petitioner is now aggrieved by the action of the University in not declaring petitioner as University Professor under the 8 years Merit Promotion Scheme. This decision was taken by the Committee now appointed by the University for said purpose. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit having been filed with the consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage itself. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner duly joined as a Lecturer in English in the Patna University on 27.01.1983. In 1985, he obtained his 2 Doctorate. With effect from 04.02.1991, he was granted promotion as a Reader under the Merit Promotion Scheme. Now after 20 years, his case for promotion to the post of Professor under the 8 years Merit Promotion Scheme of Readers has been rejected. Earlier the petitioner had submitted his papers before the University to be forwarded to the Bihar University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission for the said period. The matter having been sent to the said Commission with all recommendations. Petitioner has brought on record the proceedings of the Commission. It is not in dispute and the records clearly show that after full deliberation, the Commission on 23.03.2007 resolved to recommend the case of the petitioner to declare the petitioner as University Professor. This decision having been taken a clarification was sought for with regard to the full name of one of referees and the expert from the University. While the matter with regard to this clarification was pending the State Government abolished the Commission. It simultaneously amended the Patna University Act as also Bihar State Universities Act and provided that the University would now constitute a Committee itself for the purpose of examining the candidates for being declared as University Professor. This was in the year 2007. When the matter of petitioner was not being finalized, in 2008 the writ petition was filed. It was ultimately, by order dated 06.01.2011, that this Court in the present proceedings directed the University to immediately 3 constitute the Committee for the said purpose. It may be noted that though the power was taken away from the Commission and vested in the University in 2007 itself, the University had chosen to sleep over the matter for the last four years and did not even constitute the Committee. It is pursuant to order of this Court, as noted above the Expert Committee was constituted and thereafter the Expert committee examined the case of petitioner and has rejected the case of petitioner, which has now been challenged by interlocutory application seeking amendment to the writ petition. This amendment application has been allowed. Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, learned senior counsel, in support of writ petition submits that contemporaneous facts would show that way back in the year 2007 itself the Commission, as it then existed, had finalized the case of the petitioner. They had already resolved to recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of status of University Professor, but for a minor clarification with regard to the full name of the referee and the expert. Only the formalities of issuance of notification was left. It is at that stage, the Commission was disbanded by repealing of the Act constituting the Commission. University was then empowered in the matter. It would be evident that it is only, some time in January, 2011, thereafter the University constituted the Expert Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once this Court directed for the Committee to be constituted in the University, the petitioner made no application to the 4 Committee neither the Committee noticed the petitioner in any manner. The presumption, in my view, would be that the records and the file of the Commission were transferred to the University on basis of which the Committee proceeded in the matter. It is unfortunate that the Committee having proceeded on that basis it is ignored to look it to the proceeding of the Commission as the Commission, as noted above, had resolved to recommend the name of petitioner for University Professor but for a minor inconsequential clarification that was sought. The proceedings and the recommendation of the Committee of the University has been appended as Annexure F to the supplementary counter affidavit. That makes apology of reading. The Committee could not find any reason to reject the candidature of the petitioner on merit. The petitioner satisfied all other contentions. The sole reason on which petitioner's candidature has been rejected as recorded in the meeting, is that the petitioner has not annexed any evidence of any published research paper or book in 8 years as between 1991 to 1999. In fairness to the Committee I must note that in the next line to the note it is observed that photo copy of the cover of the book claimed to have been published by the petitioner has been annexed but the copy does not show the year of publication or any other publication details. In my view an Expert Committee of the University of which even the Vice-Chancellor was a member had not acquitted well of the statutes reposed upon them. It was such a small thing which could have been clarified 5 in less than five minutes by asking the petitioner to produce the book in original. Instead they took such a drastic decision to reject his candidatures as if they were conducting an examination ,where there is no second chance available. The result is serious because as a consequence of this rejection for this minor issue petitioner is now deprived from approaching the University for declaring him as a Professor for the next two years. It does not end there. Now when he approach and would be declared Professor, it would only be prospective thus where he would ordinarily be declared a University Professor with effect from 1999, cannot now claim to be a Professor before 2012. He would consequentially lose his seniority, his remuneration, status and everything for such a minor issue. The Commission had, in 2007, itself resolved to declare him University Professor. Had the Act not been repealed at that stage, the petitioner would have declared University Professor in the year 2007 with effect from 1999 itself. The Expert Committee and the members therein would realize their responsibility in the matter as the consequences are very serious. I, therefore, have no option but to set aside the impugned decision of the Committee as contained in Annexure F and direct the petitioner to produce the necessary book, photo copy whereof had been submitted earlier before the Committee and the Committee if it is satisfied about its publication within the period concerned would then take an appropriate to declare the petitioner as University Professor in accordance with law from 6 the date it was due to him. This process must be completed within a period of two month from the date of service of copy of this order on the Vice-Chancellor, who will be solely responsible for compliance of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Bhardwaj/- ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)