IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.833 of 1996 Smt. Nilima Sinha, wife of Shri Pramil Kumar, Advocate, Babunia Road, Siwan, Working as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Home Science, Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Siwan. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 3. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 4. Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Through the Principal, Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Siwan. 5. Smt. Asha Rani Lal, Professor-in-charge of Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Siwan. 6. The State of Bihar through the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 7. Smt. Neera Kumari, Wife of not known, Store Keeper, Vidya Bhawan, Mahila College, Siwan. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 30.6.2011 Having heard Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Miss. Madhuri Lata, learned counsel for the respondent no.7, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is now flaw in the two impugned orders passed by the Vice Chancellor of Jai Prakash University, Chapra and its affirmatory order passed by the Chancellor of the University of Bihar. As a matter of fact, this case happens to be a classic example of the illegal appointment made in the affiliated colleges. Here in this case, it is the admission of the petitioner that while she 2 was continuing to study in the College, she also got appointed on the post of Laboratory Technician for which she had not even possessed requisite qualification. Not only that, she has herself admitted that such an appointment was made without any advertisement and selection process. She has also frankly confessed that she was related to the Professor In-charge of the College and, that is how, she could be appointed in the college. Such an appointment, being in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, could not have conferred any right in the petitioner to claim for absorption in the University when the college became a constituent unit in the month of March 1981. As a matter of fact, her name was also not forwarded in the list of working employees when the college was taken over. Additionally, this Court would find that in course of audit, the records, pertaining to the alleged appointment of the petitioner, were found to be wholly doubtful by the audit party. The petitioner may have a case of her 3 being continued in the affiliated college but whenever an issue for absorption in terms of Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State University Act would arise, the Vice Chancellor of the University, being the competent authority under Section 10(6) of the Act, will always have a power to look into the genuineness of the appointment. If the Vice Chancellor, thereafter, has come to a finding in the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner was wholly vitiated and in fact she was not eligible for its being taken over against the first sanctioned post of Laboratory Technician occupied by the respondent no.7, this Court would find it difficult to interfere in such a jinxed question of fact. That being so, this application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)