IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11543 of 2006 DR.NAIYARA SARWAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh,Sr.Adv. For the University:- Mr. Yugal Kishore,Advocate For the State:- Mr. Ravi Shankar,AC to GP-7 For Respondent No.6:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh,Sr.Adv. For Respondent No.10:- Mr. Ram Balak Mahto,Sr.Adv. 10 5.5.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the State, learned Counsel for the Magadh University and learned Counsel for the Mirza Galib College (hereinafter referred to ‘as the College’) and the Private Respondent no.10. An advertisement was issued by the college, inter alia, inviting applications for appointment on two posts of Lecturers in the discipline of Zoology. The petitioner and Respondent no.10 were both applicants for the same. The controversy in the present case relates to the second post of Lecturer for Zoology. The petitioner was at serial 2 of the merit list, while respondent no.10 was at serial no.3. The College in question is a minority aided private college under the Magadh - 2 - University. The College proceeded to appoint respondent no.10 on the second post of Lecturer in the discipline of Zoology. The grievance of the petitioner is against the denial of his appointment despite his name being above in the merit list. It appears that the issue of appointment on the post of Urdu teacher under the same advertisement came to this Court in CWJC No. 8904 of 2005 Order to maintain status quo was passed on 8.8.2005. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appointment of the respondent no.10 on 7.5. 2006 by the governing body of the College was contrary to the interim order of status quo passed in CWJC No. 8904 of 2005 which pertained to the entire process of the selection and was not confined to the discipline of Urdu only. The college has wrongly stated in its counter affidavit that the interim order dated - 3 - 8.8.2005 was clarified on 4.5.2006 to permit such appointment to be made. The appointment being contrary to the interim order of the Court directing maintenance of status quo, the appointment of respondent no.10 was a nullity. The issue of violation of a Court order amenable to contempt jurisdictionand setting aside of an act done contrary to the order of the Court, are different issues. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the allegations against the petitioner that she or someone on her behalf tried to prevail upon the college authority, when allegations of misbehavior have been made for issuance of the appointment letter, was a ruse to favour respondent no.10. If there was an inquiry being held and the petitioner was to bevisited with the consequence of such inquiry, whether the incident be true or not, the petitioner was required to be associated with the same also. The petitioner has been made aware of the same for the first time in the present - 4 - proceeding. The alleged inquiry is behind the back of the petitioner and no credence should be given to it. The last submission was that the appointments from a merit panel have to be made in accordance with the seniority in the merit panel and therefore there was no justification for the appointment of respondent no.10,ignoring the petitioner. This Court concurs with the submission of the learned Counsel for the college that CWJC No. 8904 of 2005 was confined in its issue to the appointment on the post of Urdu Teacher. This fact is more than apparent from the final order in the writ petition dated 19.5.2006 dismissing the same. The law stands well settled that when the Court hears a lis before it, its adjudication is confined to the issues raised in the lis. If the lis related to the appointment on the post of Urdu teacher, the interim order of status quo dated 8.8.2005 shall have to be read as confined to - 5 - that extent. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find substance in the plea of the petitioner that the status-quo directed to be maintained was with regard to the entire process of the selection including the discipline of Zoology. Once this Court has arrived at the aforesaid finding, all issues of whether the college acted in contravention of any interim order of this Court, and whether the recommendation of the Governing body dated 7.5.2006 at Annexure- 1 as being a violation of the interim order of this Court loses its relevance. It may only be noticed at this stage that it is the case of the college that the appointment letter was issued to respondent no.10 on 19.5.2006 after the date the writ application was dismissed,. if the writ application shall have any bearing on the issue of appointment of lecturer in the discipline of Zoology. Learned Counsel for the college further - 6 - rightly submits that undoubtedly the private aided minority college in public law was also required to adhere to merit position of the panel. But, if the college justifies for germane reasons the decision to deviate from it, no fault can be found. All that this Court shall examine is whether the reasons for deviation were germane or fanciful. In the latter event, the Court may interfere. In the former event, this Court may not. The need to maintain discipline in the college is the duty of the college. This Court shall not interfere in matters of academic discipline unless circumstances are compelling. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon a Division Bench decision reported in the case of Rajendra Kishore Gokul Vs. Chairman, Bihar College Service Commission ( 2008(3) PLJR 181) and order dated 20.3.2009 in LPA No. 827 of 2008 for the proposition that if there be valid and justifiable reasons for deviating from the merit panel, so long the appointment is made from the - 7 - merit panel, the Court shall not interfere. In both the cases the Division Bench has held that the only limitation was that such power could not be exercised in an arbitrary and unfair manner. In the facts of the present case, an untoward incident has been alleged to have taken place in the office of the principal of the college when allegedly the well-wishers of the petitioner created an unruly scene demanding her appointment letter on 21.1.2006. The matter was referred to an Inquiry Committee which submitted its report. The report came to be accepted by the Governing body of the college at its emergent meeting dated 26.6.2006. This Court on perusal of the letter of the Professor Incharge dated 21.1.2006 at Annexure B to the counter affidavit of the College including the inquiry report at Annexure-D to the same and the decision of the Governing body is satisfied with the grounds stated therein for denial of appointment to the petitioner. The - 8 - grounds cannot be stated to be not germane and therefore fanciful. The Court is satisfied that the Governing body for germane reasons came to the conclusion that appointment of respondent no.10 in preference to the petitioner was in the interest of the college. Learned Counsel for the College has rightly pointed out that all the allegations in the writ petition and rejoinder to the counter affidavit are against the principal of the College. The petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the Governing body and neither has the decision of the Governing body dated 26.3.2006 been challenged by filing any amendment application even after it has brought on record by the college, assuming that the petitioner was aggrieved that it was an ex parte order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner from paragraph 13 of the rejoinder attempted to persuade this Court that sufficient pleadings have been made that respondent no.10 colluded - 9 - with the Secretary of the Governing body to deny appointment to the petitioner. It was emphasized that once allegations have been made against the Secretary of the Governing body that will suffice to support the allegation of malafide against the governing body. This Court finds its difficult to accept the submission as the Governing body does not consist of Secretary alone, but consists other members also. It shall be too far fetched and unreasonable for this Court at this stage, in the manner in which the pleading stands, to arrive at any presumption that the Secretary of the Governing body was prevailing upon the entire Governing body. In fact, the presumption shall be that the Governing body acted by independent application of mind to reach its decision. It was for the petitioner to demolish it. Such serious ground cannot be suggested in the rejoinder affidavit and attack be made on the grounds of suggestions when there is no challenge to the decision of the Governing body. - 10 - This Court has already noticed hereinabove that maintenance of academic atmosphere in the college is the responsibility of the College. The Court shall not maintain discipline in the college. Once reasons germane have been urged that the appointment of the petitioner, in view of the conduct of her well- wishers may vitiate the atmosphere in the college, it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to sit in judgment over it. It is not that completely extraneous and irrelevant material is sought to be urged to deny appointment of the petitioner. The law stands well settled that natural justice is not unruly horse. What natural justice may mean in a case will depend on the facts of the case. If the Principal had taken a unilateral decision, not to appoint the petitioner, the matter may have been entirely different. Once the Governing body of college has taken the decision and the petitioner does not allege malafide against the members of the Governing - 11 - body nor has challenged the decision of the Governing body, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar