2018 Supreme(Pat) 1123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
Akhilanand Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17670 of 2017
Decided On : 17-07-2018

The universities' decision to review the notification of absorption was null and void as it was without jurisdiction.

Headnote:

The court held that the university's decision to review the notification of absorption was null and void as it was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the university was required to consider the case of those teaching employees who were appointed against the post admissible in terms of the letter dated 30.01.1979 of the State Government which clarifies that due to delay in the process of sanction of post on affiliation itself, one post shall be deemed to be sanctioned, on affiliation at intermediate level there should be two posts on affiliation at graduation level and three posts on affiliation at honours level. Lastly, the court held that the university was required to consider the case of those employees who were appointed in the erstwhile affiliated college on the date prior to take over having the eligibility for the post, if the post was sanctioned and now available on account of death, retirement or transfer.

Fact of the Case:

The case pertains to the absorption of teaching and non-teaching employees of 40 affiliated colleges that were converted into constituent colleges of different universities in Bihar in a phased manner. The absorption process was marred by controversies and disputes, leading to the appointment of one-man committees headed by retired judges of the Supreme Court to inquire into the matter and submit reports. The Supreme Court, in the Mahasangh case, upheld the validity of the conversion process and directed the universities to take a final decision on the absorption of employees based on the reports of the committees. However, the universities, at the behest of the State Government, reviewed their earlier decisions and excluded certain employees from absorption. This led to a batch of writ petitions being filed in the Patna High Court challenging the universities' actions.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the universities' decision to review the notification of absorption was null and void as it was without jurisdiction. The court also held that the university was required to consider the case of those teaching employees who were appointed against the post admissible in terms of the letter dated 30.01.1979 of the State Government which clarifies that due to delay in the process of sanction of post on affiliation itself, one post shall be deemed to be sanctioned, on affiliation at intermediate level there should be two posts on affiliation at graduation level and three posts on affiliation at honours level. Lastly, the court held that the university was required to consider the case of those employees who were appointed in the erstwhile affiliated college on the date prior to take over having the eligibility for the post, if the post was sanctioned and now available on account of death, retirement or transfer.

Issues: 1. Whether the universities had the power to review their earlier decisions on the absorption of employees. 2. Whether the universities were required to consider the case of those teaching employees who were appointed against the post admissible in terms of the letter dated 30.01.1979 of the State Government. 3. Whether the universities were required to consider the case of those employees who were appointed in the erstwhile affiliated college on the date prior to take over having the eligibility for the post, if the post was sanctioned and now available on account of death, retirement or transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the universities' decision to review the notification of absorption was null and void as it was without jurisdiction. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mahasangh case, which held that the universities had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the absorption of employees under Section 4(1)(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The court also held that the universities' actions were taken at the behest of the State Government, which was impermissible as the State Government had no role to play in the absorption process. 2. The court held that the university was required to consider the case of those teaching employees who were appointed against the post admissible in terms of the letter dated 30.01.1979 of the State Government. The court interpreted the letter to mean that if the affiliation of a subject was pending before the cut-off date, then the post would be deemed to be sanctioned. The court held that this interpretation was in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the Krishnandan Yadav case, which had upheld the report of a one-man committee that had recommended the absorption of employees who were appointed against posts that were sanctioned or recommended before the cut-off date. 3. The court held that the university was required to consider the case of those employees who were appointed in the erstwhile affiliated college on the date prior to take over having the eligibility for the post, if the post was sanctioned and now available on account of death, retirement or transfer. The court held that this was in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the Mahasangh case, which had held that the universities could consider the absorption of employees against vacant posts that arose due to death, retirement or transfer.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the universities to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the judgment. The court also directed the universities to restore the status of absorbed employees to the petitioners and to work out the entitlement of the heirs of the deceased petitioners for payment of monetary benefits.