SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Pat) 1

PATNA HIGH COURT
SANDHAWALIA, P. S. SAHAY, JJ.
Baleshwar Prasad & others
Siya Ram Mishra & others
Tejnarayan Pd. Yadav & others
Bholanath Pd. Yadav & others
Umesh Pd. Srivastava & others
Sarju Pd. Mahto & others
Rabindra Nath Singh & others - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar & others - Respondents in all cases
C.W.J.C. No. 3529, 3630, 3716, 3878, 4091, 4149 and 4159 of 1984.
Decided on : 3-1-85

Advocates appeared:
For the petitioners: M/s Basudeva Prasad, Anil Kumar, Vinod Kumar Kanth, Shyam Kishore Sharma, Shiva Kirti Singh, Amar Nath Deo, Rajendra Prasad Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh.
For the Respondents: M/s Ram Balak Mahto, Additional A. G., with Harendra Prasad and Mahesh Prasad (In CWJC 4159/1984), S. Rafat Alam (In CWJC 4091/84), S. K. P. Sinha (In CWJC 4149/84), Satya Narayan Prasad (In CWJC 3878/84) and Amar Nath Singh (In CWJC 3530/84).

Headnote:Bihar Universities Act, Section 35 & 72-Appointment made on staffing pattern but posts not sanctioned by the University nor the appointment approved-Appointment are invalid-The provision is mandatory-There is no conflict between Sec. 35 & 72. (Para 6, 8, 9)

Judgmnet

P.S. SAHAY, J.

All these writ applications have been beard together and will be governed by this common judgment the petitioners in these applications are Class III & IV employees of the different Colleges under Magadh University and have been working as Laboratory Incharge/Store Keeper/Clerks/ Typists (peons and have moved this Court against the order of termination of their service by the University. In C.W.J.C. No. 3878 of 1984 the petitioners have been working in Kanhaiaial Sahu College, Nawadah and they were appointed. On temporary basis by Annexure 2 on 17.2.1982 and have prayed (or quashing the order of termination dated 20-6-1984, as contained in Annexure 10. In C.W.J.C. No. 3530 of 1984 the petitioners have been working in Rohtas Mahila College of Sasaram and they were appointed on temporary basis in the year 1981-82 (Annexure 4) and their services have been terminated by Annexure 6 dated 20-6-1984. The employees of B. S. College, Dinapore, are petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4091 of 1984 and they were also appointed on temporary basis in anticipation by the, sanction of their posts and they were appointed by Annexure 4 on 14-5-1981. Prayer has been made for quashing Annexure 1 dated 18-7-1984. In C. W. J. C. No. 3716 of 1984 the petitioners have been working as Store Keepers in S. P. M. College, Udantpuri, Biharsharif, and they were appointed by Annexure 1 on 18-2-1982 on posts which were neither sanctioned nor approved and have prayed for the quashing of Annexure 8 and 9 dated 20-6-1984 and 27-6-1984 respectively. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4159 of 1984 were working in J.L.W. College Dehrri-on-Sone and they were appointed on temporary basis in anticipation of the sanction on 23-3-1982. 6-12-1979 and 20-4-1980 (Annexure 1 and 2 series respectively) and their services have been terminated by Annexure 5 dated 18-7-1984. The plaintiffs in C.W.J.C. No. 4149 of 1984 were also employee of J.L.N. College, Dehrri-on-Sone and they were appointed by Annexure 1 in anticipation of approval. Their services have been terminated by Annexure 3 dated 18-7-1984. In C.W.J.C No. 3529 of 1984 the petitioners are employees of T. P. S. College, Patna, and they were appointed on 10-7-1980 Annexure 2 and by Annexure 6 dated, 28-8-1981 on temporary basis subject to the approval and their services have been terminated by Annexure 1 dated 5-7-1984.

2. The short facts, leading to these applications necessary to decide the controversy between the parties, are that the petitioners, in all these writ applications, have been working on different posts on the basis of appointment made by advertisement made by advertisement/Governing Body/Vice-Chancellor in different College and also have been drawing their salary. According to the petitioners, these appointments were on the basis of staffing pattern duly approved by the authorities after taking into consider the requirement of the employees according to the number of students studying in different Colleges. But, suddenly their salary was stopped on the ground that their salary was stopped on the ground that they were not appointed on sanctioned posts and also without the approval of the University and for that a committee was constitution which ultimately submitted its report against these petitioners. The report has been seriously challenged by the petitioners. On receipt of the report the University, by different letters, as mentioned petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order of all the termination the petitioners have moved this court.

3. Counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the University and also by the State of Bihar and reply thereto but I would like to refer only to the facts which are relevant for deciding these cases. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, which is common in all the cases, it is stated that under Magadh University there were four types of Institutions :

(a) University department,

(b) Constituent Colleges directly under the control and man
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top