No information available

B.P.Singh and Nagendra Rai JJ.

1. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length, but we find no merit in this petition. We briefly record our reasons.

2. The petitioners claim to be class III and class IV employees of the J. S. College, Daltongaj, a constituent College of the Ranchi University. In the instant petition, they have claimed their wages for the periods from May, 1988 to August 1989 and again from February, 1991 onwards. They claim that though they were appointed against the posts sanctioned by the University in May, 1988, then the Principal of the College stopped payment of wages to them and this compelled them to taken up the matter with the University, Pursuant to an undestanding reached with the University they again started getting their wages from September, 1989 onwards and continued to receive their wages till January, 1991. Again from February, 1992 they are not being paid their wages though they are working against the posts.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed an behalf of the respondents in which the claim of the petitioners is denied and it is stated that the petitioners have neither been appointed by the University nor by any competent authority of the University. Their appointments have never been approved by the University and further their appointments are illegal having regard to the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which lays down mandatorily that no appointment shall be made against unsanctioned posts and without the prior approval of the State of Bihar. According to the respondents, all these appointments have been illegally made by the then Principals without the prior approval of the State Government. When this matter came to light, the University through its letter dated 15-4-1988 directed all the Principals of the Colleges to remove/terminate such appointments which. were net duly approved. Pursuant to the said communication, the Principal of the J. S. College, Daltongaj through letters issued on 11-5-1988 terminated the appointments of several persons so employed including the petitioners and communicated the same to the University which is evidenced from Annexure-B.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners where not allowed to work nor were they being paid their wages. Subsequently the successor-Principal illegally allowed the petitioners to work from September, H89 to January 1991 and also paid them wages for that period. This was illegal. He was succeeded by Sri M. Z. Haque as in-charge-Principal. When he came in know of the illegality, he stupped the payment of wages to the petitioners, particulary, in view of the fact that no found was allotted for payment to such persons as their appointments were illegal. He also did not allow the petitioners to work in the College and the petitioners have not been permitted in work ever since. It is stated that the petitioners did not work for the period from May, 1988 to August, 1989 and Appointing authority (sic) not allowed to work from February, 1991, onwards. Since their appointments stood terminated, there was no question of payment of wages to them.

5. In their rejoinder, the petitioners have not denied the fact that their services were terminated in May, 1988. Hut they pleaded that the said order of termination was recalled. No reliable martial bas been placed before us on the basis of which we can say that the orders terminating their services were recalled. Reliance is placed upon Annexure-9 which is a resolution passed by the non-teaching staff Association of the college on 16-5-1988 in which it has clearly expressed its displeasure against the hasty action taken by the Principal of the College in terminating their services. The resolution further mentions that if the orders were not recalled, the non-teaching staff of the college will stop work with effect from 19-5-1988. In one corner of Annexure-9, there is an endorsement by hand that the termination letters issued by the Principal are cancelled.

6.