Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
N.L. Untwalia and S. Sarwar Ali, JJ.
Kamal Narayan Jha - Appellants
Vs.
The Secretary, University Service Commission and Others - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 121, 493 of 1968
Decided On: 16.02.1971
EDUCATION - TEACHER - PROMOTION - LABORATORY ASSISTANT - APPOINTMENT TO LECTURER POST - REQUIREMENT OF UNIVERSITY SERVICE COMMISSION'S CONCURRENCE - SECTION 48A OF BIHAR STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1960 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitioners, both Laboratory Assistants in a college affiliated with Magadh University, were appointed as Lecturers by the Governing Body of the college. The University Service Commission refused to concur with the appointments, citing Section 48A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960, which requires the Commission's concurrence for the appointment of teachers. The petitioners challenged the refusal, arguing that they were teachers within the meaning of the Act and were entitled to promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not teachers within the meaning of the Act because their appointments as Lecturers had not been approved or concurred in by the University Service Commission. The court interpreted Section 48A to mean that all appointments of teachers, whether by promotion or direct recruitment, must be made on the recommendation of the Commission. The court also held that the Governing Body's power to make temporary appointments under Sub-section (10) of Section 48A did not apply to substantive vacancies.
Issues: 1. Whether Laboratory Assistants who are allowed to impart instruction in a college are teachers within the meaning of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960? 2. Whether the appointment of a Laboratory Assistant to the post of Lecturer is a promotion or a direct recruitment? 3. Whether the Governing Body of a college can appoint a Laboratory Assistant to the post of Lecturer without the concurrence of the University Service Commission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'teacher' in Section 2(r) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1960 includes Laboratory Assistants who are allowed to impart instruction in a college. 2. The appointment of a Laboratory Assistant to the post of Lecturer is a promotion if the Laboratory Assistant was previously appointed as a teacher in accordance with the Act. 3. The Governing Body of a college cannot appoint a Laboratory Assistant to the post of Lecturer without the concurrence of the University Service Commission, even if the appointment is made under Sub-section (10) of Section 48A of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the University Service Commission's refusal to concur with the petitioners' appointments was justified.
N.L. Untwalia, J.
1. These two writ applications have been heard together as similar and identical questions of facts and law are involved in them. They are being disposed of by a common JUDGMENT :. There is a College at Dinapur in the district of Patna known as Bindeshwar Singh College. This is an institution which is affiliated to the Magadh University for imparting education both in Arts and Science upto the B.A. and B.Sc. standard. Shri Kamal Narayan Jha, the petitioner in C.W.C.C. 121 of 1968, was appointed a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Mathematics on the 28th of October, 1960 by the Governing Body of the College, the Secretary of which is respondent no. 2 in both the writ applications. He was confirmed in the said post on the 28th of October, 1961. He was a mere graduate when he was appointed as Laboratory Assistant. He passed his M.Sc. examination in Mathematics from Bihar University in the year 1966 and obtained a high second class degree. Thereafter he was allowed to do teaching in Mathematics and engage B.Sc. class including Honours class from 13-9-66. Annexure D, a copy of the certificate of the Principal filed with the rejoinder of the petitioner, would show that Shri Jha worked as a temporary Lecturer in Mathematics from 13-9-66 to 31-1-67 and again reverted to his substantive post of Laboratory Assistant thereafter. Shri Krishnanand Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968, was appointed a Laboratory Assistant in the Department of Psychology in the B.S. College on the 7th of August, 1965. He had, however, obtained in 1964 a high second class M.A. degree in Psychology. In this case the certificate of the Principal (Annexure 5) filed with the rejoinder of the petitioner would show that he worked as Lecturer in Psychology from 29-11-65 to 31-1-66 in the session 1965-66 and again from 1-8-66 to 31-1-67 in the session 1966-67. He engaged honours and pass classes of the degree course.
2. It appears that substantive posts of Lecturers in Mathematics and Psychology fell vacant in the College sometime in the year 1967. Both the petitioners applied for being appointed to the posts of Lecturer in their respective subject. It would appear from a resolution of the Governing Body passed in a meeting held on 17th September, 1967, copy of which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Governing Body in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968, that it was decided, because of their satisfactory service when they worked temporarily in the posts of Lecturer, to appoint them to the posts in the substantive vacancy by promotion. On the basis of this resolution, both the petitioners were allowed to join the posts of Lecturer on 28-9-67. A reference was made to the University Service Commission for concurrence in their appointment by a letter written by the Secretary of the Governing Body on 13-11-67, a copy of which is Annexure C in C.W.J.C. 121 of 1968 and Annexure 4 in C.W.J.C. 493 of 1968. Of course, in Annexure C the resolution of the Governing Body is not quoted and it is found quoted in Annexure 4. Annexure C was meant for concurrence in the appointment of Shri Jha and Annexure 4 was meant for concurrence in the appointment of Shri Singh. The concurrence, it is clear, was asked for treating the appointment of the two petitioners by promotion to the post of Lecturer from their substantive post of Laboratory Assistant which they were holding previously.
3. The University Service Commission, the Secretary of which is respondent no. 1 in both the cases, refused to give concurrence, this is dated 5-1-68 Annexure B in one case and Annexure 3 in the other. This is the impugned ORDER :in both the writ applications. The letter of respondent no. 1 dated 5-1-68 addressed to respondent no. 2 states that since Sarveshri Kamal Narayan Jha and Krishnanand Sigh were Laboratory Assistants, they could not be promoted to the post of lecturer in view of the intimation given by the Magadh University in their letter dated t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
