IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9883 of 2006 Dr.Baidyanath Singh, son of Late Ram Shewak Singh, R/O village- Garura, P.O. + P.S. Sanjholi, District- Rohtas ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Higher Education 2.The Magadh University through its Registrar, Bodh Gaya 3.The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4.The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5.The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya ………… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Pd.Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Navjot Yeshu, Adv. For the State : Standing Counsel No.21 For the University : Mr.Jai Shankar Barnwal,Adv. ----------- 6. 15/02/2010 Learned counsel for the University submits that he will not rely on the counter affidavit filed by him and he may be permitted to withdraw the same. Permission is granted. Let the counter affidavit available on record be treated as withdrawn. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the University. Petitioner claims to be working as Head of Department in the Department of Hindi in Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav College, Aurangabad. He claims to have joined on 1.8.1971 in the College. He was later on made Professor - 2 - Incharge. College subsequently got affiliated in the Sessions 1975-76. On the communication sent by the governing body to the College Service Commission, it is said that, Commission granted concurrence to the appointment of petitioner. It is also said that College later on became a constituent unit of the University in the 4th phase in 1986. Thereafter it is said that the Chancellor examined the report of the Appointment Committee and directed for permanent absorption of petitioner and the like. Accordingly, pay of petitioner was fixed in the old scale and subsequently he was granted new scale with effect from 10.1.1991. From the pleadings, it appears that some controversy arose in respect of appointment of Professor Incharge of the College in between petitioner and one Ganesh Prasad Singh. University allowed said Ganesh Prasad Singh to act as Professor Incharge of the College, for which petitioner filed several representations before the University which were not considered. Finding no options left, it is said that, petitioner filed Title Suit No.113 of 1987 challenging the appointment of said Ganesh Prasad Singh as Professor Incharge. It is said - 3 - that some interim orders were passed in the title suit confirming petitioner’s seniority and directing him to work as Professor Incharge. However, University did not pass any orders consequent to the directions issued by the Munsif in the suit. Some allegations have been leveled in the writ application with regard to forged appointments made by said Ganesh Prasad Singh in the College. It is said that petitioner filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad with respect to the said forged appointments which was registered as Aurangabad P.S.Case No.369 of 1988. It is further said that petitioner filed an application before Hon’ble Chancellor, who by his order dated 3.5.1990 stayed the salary of said fake appointees. However, later on, by letter dated 26.10.1988 petitioner was put under suspension without any show cause notice and without any opportunity to him. Said suspension was challenged by petitioner in C.W.J.C.No.8309 of 1988 and this Court vide order dated 26.4.1989 quashed the order of his suspension. Respondent University moved in appeal against said order but without any success. Petitioner thereafter joined in the - 4 - College and started working. He was then transferred to S.Sinha College, Aurangabad on 14.12.1990, against which petitioner filed Misc.Case No.1 of 1991 before the Additional Munsif, Aurangabad, who, by his order dated 13.5.1991, stayed the transfer of petitioner. However, petitioner was not allowed to work in the present College in spite of stay order. Petitioner filed several applications along with said order dated 13.5.1991 before respondent University but no action was taken on the same. It is said that respondents filed appeal against said order of learned Additional Munsif before learned District Judge, Aurangabad which was admitted on the question of limitation. Petitioner filed civil revision application, namely, C.R.No.1541 of 1991 against said order of learned District Judge, Aurangabad and this Court, vide order dated 3.9.1991, set aside the order of learned District Judge and remitted the matter back for fresh hearing. During this period, petitioner filed several representations for accepting his joining and payment of his salary which was due since 1991. Subsequently, in 1996 the Syndicate constituted a three member Committee to enquire - 5 - into the affairs of the College. The said Committee, vide its letter dated 10.2.1998, recommended the Syndicate for allowing petitioner to join as lecturer in the College and for payment of his salary. Accordingly, the Syndicate in its meeting dated 9.6.1998, after considering the report of the Committee, allowed petitioner to work as lecturer in the College. However, no order was passed in respect of payment of his salary. Petitioner received the communication and submitted his joining in the College as lecturer on 8.7.1998 and started getting his salary. However, in subsequent meetings of the Syndicate, no decision was taken with regard to payment of arrears of salary of the petitioner. During this period, petitioner had applied for advance for solemnizing the marriage of his daughter in 1992 but the same was not allowed. His other applications for loan for treatment of his mother were also refused, as a result of which she died. Finally, for payment of salary, petitioner filed an application before the Chancellor on 31.5.1999 but no action was taken on the same. Petitioner asserted that he is continuing in service to the satisfaction of all concerned. - 6 - It is further said that the Syndicate in its meeting dated 16.12.2000 set aside the enquiry report of the said three member committee so far as it concerned petitioner. When petitioner came to know about the said decision of the Syndicate, he filed protest before the Vice Chancellor on which a letter was issued by the Vice Chancellor on 27.1.2001 constituting two- member enquiry committee, but till the filing of this writ application, the Committee had not made any enquiry. It is said that an amount of Rs.2,05,316/- has been recovered from the salary of petitioner without any opportunity of hearing to him. It is also said that against the resolution of the Syndicate dated 16.12.2000 petitioner had filed an application before the Chancellor on 6.7.2001 but no action has been taken on the same. Thereafter, submissions have been made in the writ application challenging the action of the respondents in withholding his salary etc. It is also said that till date no notification for his time bound promotion as Reader has been issued although juniors to him have already been promoted as Reader. With these pleadings, writ application has been filed. - 7 - This Court finds that not a single document has been annexed with the writ application. A typed copy of an alleged representation dated 28.2.2005 has been enclosed with the writ application, but the same has not been made annexure with the writ application. There is no other document in support of any of the facts stated in the writ application. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the pleadings made in the writ application, if uncontroverted, has to be accepted by the Court and suitable orders may be passed on the merits of the writ application. For this purpose, this Court considered the prayer made in the writ application which are as follows : “1. That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ(s), direction(s), directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from January 1991 to July 1998, with statutory interest, And/or pass such other order or orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper. 2. That the instant writ applications interalia based on following grounds :- (i)That not paying the arrear of salary to the petitioner from January 1991 to July 1998 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law (ii)That the action of respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, uncalled and malafide. (iii)That the action of respondents in paying the arrears to the petitioner shows colourable exercise of power. - 8 - (iv)That the action of respondents is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. (v)That the action of respondents is violative of Principles of Natural Justice.” From paragraphs 1 and 2 quoted above, it is apparent that the prayer of petitioner in the writ application is confined to payment of arrears of his salary from January, 1991 to July, 1998 with statutory interest. Apparently, petitioner has not questioned the decision of the Syndicate. Orders of learned trial court, Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor have also not been brought on record. Apart from that, though it is said that, petitioner has filed representation to the Chancellor twice, but the copies and details of the same have also not been brought on record. From the pleadings, itself it appears that petitioner has been approaching different authorities and the matter is pending at the University level. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to merely go on the pleadings made in the writ application and pass any specific orders in respect of the same. However, petitioner is given liberty to file a comprehensive representation before the - 9 - Vice Chancellor of the University for any of the grievances he may have in connection with his services with the University. It goes without saying that as and when such a representation is filed by petitioner, the Vice Chancellor shall be under obligation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to petitioner preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. The writ application is disposed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)