IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10684 of 2008 JAI KUMAR SINGH son of late Baikunth Singh, Resident of At + PO Madarsha Road, beside Gaurudwara, Sasaram, PS Sasaram, Distt Rohtas at Sasaram Versus 1. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY,Arrah through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah. 3. The College Inspector (Arts and Commerce), Veer Kunwar Singh University, 4. Adhoc Committee of Ishwar Dayal Bhagwat Prasad Singh College, Nokha Rohtas, through its Secretary, Dr. Kanhaiya Singh @ Kanhaiya Rai, Economic Department, A.S. College Bikramganj, Distt. Rohtas ----------- CWJC No.10847 of 2008 DR.AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH S/o Late Rambahal Rai, Resident of At + PO Nokha, PS Nokha Distt Rohtas at Sasaram Versus 1 VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, Arrah through its Registrar Arrah, Bihar 2 The Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, Bihar 3 The College Inspector (Arts and Commerce), Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, Bihar 4 Adhoc Committee of Ishwar Dayal Bhagwat Prasad Singh College, Nokha Rohtas, through its Secretary, Dr. Kanhaiya Singh @ Kanhaiya Rai, Economic Department, A.S. College Bikramganj, Distt. Rohtas 5 The President/Government Representative Adhoc Committee of Ishwar Dayal Bhagat Prasad Singh College, Garhnokha, Rohtas, i.e. the S.D.O Sasaram Rohtas 6 The Member/Public Representative of the Adhoc Committee, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Chaurasia, M. L.A., Nokha Distt. Rohtas 7 Professor-Incharge of Ishwar Dayal Bhagat Prasad Singh College, Garhnokha, Distt, Rohtas. ------------ For the petitioners: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate For the University: Mr. A. B. Sinha, Advocate For respondent no.4. Mr. Chttranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---------------- - 2 - 5 05-01-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, learned counsel for the respondent- University and its officials as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. There is serious dispute on facts as to whether only adhoc committee has been constituted by the University from time to time to manage the affairs of Ishwar Dayal Bhagat Prasad Singh college, Garhnokha, Rohtas or the formation of governing body of the college was also complete on account of orders declaring the petitioner Jai Kumar Singh as one of the members in the capacity of being a M.L.A and petitioner Dr. Ambika Prasad Singh as an educationist member and later on as donor member. The stand of the petitioner is that formation of the regular governing body was completed as far back as in 2005 and this fact was communicated to the Registrar of the University by the Secretary of adhoc committee as well as University representative through his letter dated 31.3.2005 (annexure-7). According to the petitioners the tenure of the regular members of the governing body as per statute is of three years which is extendable by further period of three months and in that capacity as a donor member petitioner Dr Ambika Prasad Singh continues to be a member of the governing body and has participated as such. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 24.6.2008 contained in annexure-1 whereby the University has again notified an adhoc committee for the college in question which is an affiliated college of the University. In that notification the people’s - 3 - representative (M.L.A) is another person and not the petitioner, Jai Kumar Singh. The donor member post has been shown vacant in that notification. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that according to provisions of Article 28 of the relevant Statute the governing body created earlier could not have been dissolved even partially without giving an opportunity of hearing to the members and such an order is required to be passed by the Syndicate of the University. On the other hand on behalf of the University and private respondents a stand has been taken that the regular governing body never came into existence and hence another adhoc committee was constituted by the impugned order without there being any need of dissolving the existing governing body. It was further submitted that after constitution of adhoc committee in the year 2004 another adhoc committee was constituted for the college in the year 2007 and if the petitioners claim to be regular members of the governing body, they should have challenged the constitution of adhoc committee in the year 2007 but the same was never done. On behalf of the petitioners it has been replied that the petitioners never came to know of constitution of adhoc committee in the year 2007 and the governing body constituted earlier in which they were members continued to function and manage the college and hence they had no occasion to challenge the constitution of adhoc committee of the year 2007. According to the petitioners that order of - 4 - the year 2007 has remained in the files of the University and was never acted upon. On going through the relevant provisions of the Statute this court finds that University is required to issue specific notification for constituting an adhoc committee but there is no such requirement in express terms in respect of constitution of a regular governing body. On that account confusion has arisen as to whether regular governing body was ever constituted to manage the affairs of the concerned college. Nonetheless, there are clear materials to show that the petitioners were notified and treated as members of the governing body in different categories and there is no dispute that they continued as such members. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have right of being heard in case their tenure as members under different categories is adversely affected by the formation of adhoc committee as per decision of the University. Rules of natural justice also require that petitioners be heard in the matter before the University constitutes adhoc committee so that if the petitioners have any further tenure left the same is not adversely affected without giving them opportunity of hearing. The issue as to whether petitioners have been recognized and have functioned as members of the regular governing body will also be decided by the University itself and if it is found that a governing body of the college had been constituted, then its dissolution, if required, must be done in accordance with the provisions in the - 5 - Statute which require opportunity of hearing to the governing body and appropriate orders by the Syndicate of the University. In view of aforesaid discussion and finding the impugned order contained in annexure-1 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the University for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. For that purpose the petitioners are required to appear before the Registrar of the University with a copy of this order within four weeks. The University is directed to take further decision in accordance with law expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The University is also advised to complete the process for formation of regular governing body for the college without unnecessary delay, if the governing body is found to be not constituted in the past. Both the writ applications stand disposed of. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)