A statutory body is not bound by the Conduct Rules applicable to Government servants and it is free to appoint persons in its service for which they have been found suitable by the competent authority, even if they have not submitted their applications through the proper channel.

Headnote:
KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT VISHVAVIDYALAYA ACT, 1960 - APPOINTMENT OF UNIVERSITY STAFF - POWERS OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - NATURAL JUSTICE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - NOTICE - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:

Two petitioners, Bhutkun Jha and Tilkeshwar Chaudhary, were serving on a temporary basis in a Government Institute known as the Mithila Institute of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning at Darbhanga. When the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya (University) was established, the petitioners began to work as part-time assistants in the University in addition to their duties in the Institute. On 9-6-1961, they were both appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on a temporary basis. They did not join their respective posts in the University until the 1st February 1963, because they entered into correspondence with the Vice-Chancellor regarding certain further facilities in regard to their conditions of service. During this interval, the petitioners also submitted two applications to the Director of the Institute. In their first application, they requested him to grant them leave without pay for one year with effect from the 1st January 1963. In their second application, they referred to their first application as their "resignation petition" and to the fact that no communication had been received by them, although more than one month and a half had elapsed and their offer of appointment in the University was at a stake. They said that if no instruction was received by them before the 1st February 1963, they would treat themselves as relieved from their service under the Institute and they would join their respective posts under the University with effect from the 1st February 1963. Both the petitioners did join their respective posts under the University on the 1st February 1963. On the 20th of April 1963, the Director of the Institute wrote to Tilkeshwar Chaudhary calling upon him to hand over charge of the library or the Institute to the permanent incumbent to the post of the Librarian who had come to join. Subsequently, on the 7th August 1963, the Director called upon the petitioners to vacate the quarters which they were occupying, and this was complied with by them by 1st November 1963. Meanwhile, on the 15th October 1963, both the petitioners were confirmed in their respective posts under the University under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor in the revised pay scale. After all these had happened, the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Education Department addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor on the 4th December 1963, in which the Vice-Chancellor was informed that the two petitioners were under the service of the Government, and as such their appointment in the service of the University was made in an illegal manner and the Vice-Chancellor was requested to intimate as to when the services of the two petitioners would be restored to the Institute. The Vice-Chancellor, however, on the 20th December 1963, wrote back to the Deputy Secretary that the appointment of the petitioners under the University was not illegally made, inasmuch as, their appointments had been made with the information to the Government and after selection which was approved by the Ad-Hoc Committee of the University constituted with the approval of the Chancellor to advise the Vice-Chancellor. Again no action was taken by the Government for more than six months. On the 8th July 1964, however, the Deputy Secretary to the Government addressed a communication to the Director of the Institute intimating to him that the application of both the petitioners submitted on the 14th December 1962 for one years leave without pay or for resignation, in the alternative, had been rejected. A copy of the Government order was communicated to each of the two petitioners by the Director on the 14th July 1964. On the 7th September 1964, the Registrar of the University verbally informed the petitioners that their services would be reverted back to the Institute. On the 23rd October 1964, however, the petitioners were informed by the Registrar that the Vice-Chancellor had been pleased to reject their application and that their services "are being treated as having been returned to the Mithila Research Institute Darbhanga with effect from 8th September 1964". It is the validity of this order of the Vice-Chancellor which is under challenge in these two writ applications.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were not legally appointed in the service of the University because they were in Government service and they had submitted their applications to the Vice-Chancellor direct, and not through the proper channel, meaning thereby that their applications had not been forwarded to the University by the Head of their Department, and as such they had joined the service of the University without the permission of the Government. The Court also held that the appointment of the petitioners was made by the Vice-Chancellor in excess of the power of appointment which had been conferred upon him under the Act and the notification (Annexure 2), which was issued under Sec. 46 of the Act. The Court further held that the petitioners were entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court because to allow their application would be tantamount to restore an illegality and to uphold their appointment which was invalid at the inception. The Court also held that the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor was fit to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to show that they had been duly appointed by the Vice-Chancellor within the limits of the power conferred upon him by the notification (Annexure 2).
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were legally appointed in the service of the University? 2. Whether the appointment of the petitioners was made by the Vice-Chancellor in excess of the power of appointment which had been conferred upon him under the Act and the notification (Annexure 2)? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court? 4. Whether the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor was fit to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to show that they had been duly appointed by the Vice-Chancellor within the limits of the power conferred upon him by the notification (Annexure 2)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The University, as a statutory body, was not bound by the Conduct Rules applicable to Government servants and it was free to appoint the petitioners in the service of the University for which the petitioners had been found suitable by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Ad-Hoc Committee which had been constituted to advise him, and the fact that the petitioners had not submitted their applications to the Vice-Chancellor through their Departmental Heads, was no concern of the University, although on account of such omission, the petitioners might have rendered themselves liable for departmental action by the Government. 2. The Vice-Chancellor's power in the matter of making appointments was undoubtedly controlled by Sec.10(6) of the Act. By virtue of that provision, he had to act in accordance with the statutes which were to be framed in due course. But in the intervening period, his powers of making appointments could be exercised subject to the other provisions of the Act. Sections 46 and 47 of the Act were relevant in this context. 3. The petitioners were entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court because to allow their application would be tantamount to restore an illegality and to uphold their appointment which was invalid at the inception. 4. The impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor was fit to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to show that they had been duly appointed by the Vice-Chancellor within the limits of the power conferred upon him by the notification (Annexure 2).
Final Decision: The Court allowed both the applications and quashed the order of the Vice-Chancellor contained in Annexure 13 to the writ application in M. J. C. No. 1638 of 1964 and in Annexure 14 to the writ application in M. J. C. No. 1639 of 1964.

Judgment

G.N.Prasad, J.

1. These two applications have been heard together since they arise under similar circumstances and the point involved in them is the the same. They are directed against an order of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vish-yavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the University), which was communicated to the two petitioners by a separate letter addressed to them by the Registrar of the University on the 23rd October 1964. A copy of the letter is Annexure 13 to the writ application in M. J. C. No. 1638 and a copy of a similar letter is Annexure 14 to the writ application in M. J. C. No. 1639.

2. The Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya Act, 1960 (Bihar Act VI of 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on the 18th March 1960, and in pursuance of it, the University was established on the 26th January 1961 with Mahama-hopadhya Dr. Umesh Mishra as its first Vice-chancellor. Prior to the establishment of the University, Bhutkun Jha, the petitioner in M. J. C. No. 1638, was serving on a temporary basis as a stenographer in a Government Institute, known as the Mithila Institute of Post Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning at Darbhanga thereinafter referred to as the Institute) and Tilkeshwar Chaudhary, petitioner in M. J. C. No. 1639, was serving in the same Institute on a temporary basis as a scribe-cum-typist. Bhutkun Jha joined the Institute on 23-12-1952 and Tilkeshwar Chaudhary joined it on 16-10-1954. On 31-3-1960, Tilkeshwar Chaudhary was also put in charge of the library of the Institute. When the University was established, the State Government sent a telegram (vide Annexure 3 in each case) to the Director of the Institute to render all possible assistance to the Vice-Chancellor until the University Office- functioned independently. In accordance with the said direction of the State Government, both the petitioners began to work as part-time assistants in the University in addition to their duties in the Institute. On the 28th January 1961, the State Government issued a notification under Section 46 of the Act for the purpose of removing certain difficulties in relation to the enforcement of the Act and to authorise the Vice-Chancellor of the University to exercise certain powers until the authorities and officers of the University were constituted and appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A copy of the notification is Annexure 2 to each writ application, and it is in the following terms:

Government of Bihar

Education Department,

Notification.

Patna, the 28th January, 1961,

No. 1/U2-027/60E 321--Whereas there is no specific provision in the Kameshwar

Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya Act, 1960 Bihar Act VI of 1960), as

to the officer or authority who shall be responsible for taking necessary

action for the constitution of the authorities of the University and for

carrying out the purposes of the said Act until the authorities and officers

of the University are constituted and appointed;

And whereas difficulties will arise unless suitable directions are issued by

the State Government in this behalf;