Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
CWJC Nos. 7701, 2250, 14428, 14478, 14493, 14508, 14539, 14562, 14688, 14743, 14744, 14748, 14917, 15644, 15800 of 2017
(8.10.2021)
Dr. Raj Kumar Mazumdar (in 7701)
Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha
& Anr. (in 2250)
Dr. Usha Singh & Ors. (in 14428)
Dr. Prem Kant Jha & Ors. (in 14478)
Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh (in 14493)
Dr. Ram Naresh Kunwar & Ors.
(in 14508)
Dr. Ram Shrestha Roy (in 14539)
Dr. Raj Kumar Madhukar (in 14562)
Dr. Rakesh Verma (in 14688)
Dr. Ram Prakash Chandra Verma
& Ors. (in 14743)
Dr. Upendra Kunwar (in 14744)
Dr. Asad Hasan (in 14748)
Brij Kishore Tiwary (in 14917)
Dr. Hari Narayan Thakur (in 15644)
Dr. Umesh Prasad Singh (in 15800)
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. .... Respondents
(in all)
Bihar State University Act, 1976 (Amendment Act, 2017) – Section 2(v) and 67(a) – Age of retirement of Principal of college – By 2012 Amendment Act, word 'principal' being removed along with 'demonstrator' was for obvious reason that principal already stood included in sanctioned posts in teacher grade on the basis of regulation issued by UGC from time to time – Sole purpose of behind 2012 Amendment Act was to exclude and remove persons who had nothing to do with teaching but were still included within definition of 'teacher' – Even after 2012 Amendment Act, Principals who had crossed age of 62 were not called upon to demit office and/or removed upon attaining age of 62 years on the ground that they came under category of non-teaching employees whose age of superannuation was fixed as 62 years and not teachers where age of retirement was fixed as 65 years – No step was ever taken after 2012 Amendment Act to disturb Principals who were holding such posts even after they attained age of 62 years, till much after 2017 Amendment Act having come into force – 2017 Amendment Act which again incorporated word 'principal' in definition of 'teacher' – Post of Principal having been restricted to senior persons holding post of Professor and Reader is yet another pointer that Principal cannot be termed as a non-teaching employee/staff – Eligibility of post of being directly related to post of person applied for it having direct nexus to object sought to be achieved and provision is yet another indication that post of Principal would come under definition in teacher – 2010 UGC Regulations do not provide for any distinction between principals and teachers. (Paras 72 to 78)
Bihar State University Act, 1976 (Amendment Act, 2017) – Section 2(v) and 67(a) – Age of retirement of Principal of college – Principals come under category of teachers as per 2010 UGC Regulations – If a Reader/Professor cannot be appointed as a Principal of College if subject he/she teaches is not taught in such college also indicates that Principal has to be a teacher of subject, which is taught in concerned college, otherwise, such stipulation would become arbitrary and unreasonable having no nexus with such appointment – Petitioners made to retire in terms of State's understanding of 2017 Amendment Act shall be deemed to have continued on posts of Principal till they attained age of 65 years and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and emoluments as well as continuity in service – Recoveries made from certain persons to be returned forthwith. (Paras 78, 92 and 98)
Interpretation of Statute – For the purpose of interpreting a statute, same is to be read in its entirety and all efforts must be directed towards giving effect to statutory scheme – A statute must be construed having regard to legislative intent – It has to be meaningful – A construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would fulfil object and purport of legislative intent – Court cannot add or read words into a statute nor can it legislate. (Paras 89, 90 and 93)
Cases Referred:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175; D. R. Fraser & Co. vs. Revenue Minister, AIR (36) 1949 PC 120; W. I. Theatres vs. Municipal Corporation, Poona, AIR 1959 SC 586; State of UP vs. Malik Zarid Khalid, (1988) 1 SCC 145; Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University vs. Dayanand Jha, AIR 1986 SC 1200; M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212; Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1 – Referred.
Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna Devi vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 965; Aswini Kumar Ghosh vs. Arabinda Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369; Union of India vs. Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273; Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (2) PLJR 798; Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 192; Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271; Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information & Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590; Bishwambar Singh vs. State of Orissa, 1954 SCR 842; In Re The Kerala Education Bill, 1959 SCR 995; Poppatlal Shah vs. State of Madras, 1953 SCR 677; Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi vs. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140; Raghunath Rai Bareja vs. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230; B. Premanand vs. Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 SCC 266; Union of India vs. Pfizer Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 39; High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat, (2003) 4 SCC 712; State of West Bengal vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129; Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385; Lalit Mohan Pandey vs. Pooran Singh, (2004) 6 SCC 626; Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663; Delhi Development Authority vs. Virender Lal Bahri, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 279; Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363; Simpi Kumari vs. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/0235/2021: 2021 (2) BLJ 620 : 2021 (2) PLJR 430 – Relied.
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.—The petitioners have moved the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:—
CWJC No. 7701 of 2017:
“That by this writ petition the petitioner carves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Respondents to superannuate the petitioner at the age of 62 years and pass an order that he is entitled to continue on the post of principal or other teaching post or posts up to the age of 65 years.”
Further, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:—
“I. After adjudication your lordships may be pleased to pass an order that the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 (Bihar Act 22, 2012) cannot be applied retrospectively.
II. That the Principal of the college or University is also entitled for increased period of age of retirement i.e. upto 65 years.
III. An appropriate writ or order or direction be passed restraining the respondents to superannuate the petitioner/ Principal in the age of 62 years and he be allowed to continue on his post upto 65 years of age.
IV. Any other order or orders which your lordships deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed.”
CWJC No. 2250 of 2017:
“(i) For issuance of writ of quo-warranto for removal of Dr. Baban Singh, respondent no. 10 from the post of Principal, College of Commerce, Arts and Science, Patna who is holding a post in public office now as an usurp and without any legal authority after attaining the age of 62 years on 06.11.2016 and retirement on 30.11.2016 in view of the fact that the Principal is no more a teacher/teaching staff of the University after amendment in definition of Teacher in section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 through Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act 2012, published in Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated 27.12.2012 and the said amendment has been made effective retrospectively with effect from the date the UGC Regulation, 1991 came into operation on 5th October, 1991.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Magadh University to immediately notify the retirement of Dr. Baban Singh from the post of Principal with effect from 30.11.2016.
(iii) For issuance of direction to the respondent Magadh University for not allowing Dr. Baban Singh to continue as Principal since he has superannuated on 30.11.2016 in view of section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and clause 8(f) of APPENDIX-I of UGC Regulations, 2010 and the post of Principal in the said college may be held by other appropriate and competent person as per law.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs the petitioners are entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
CWJC No. 14428 of 2017:
“i. For an appropriate writ, order of direction for quashing the communication dated 20.09.2017 contained in Memo No. 1703 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the Additional Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar (Respondent No. 4) has informed the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University (Respondent No. 6) that since the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 2017 Amendment Act) by which “Principals” have been included in the definition of “Teachers”, is prospective in its operation, such Principals who have attained or exceeded 62 years of age on 18.05.2017 (being the date on which the 2017 Amendment Act came into force), would stand relieved from their service with effect from their originally prescribed date for their superannuation (i.e. when they attained 62 years of age).
ii. For an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 23.09.2017 contained in Letter No. 394/GIA/17 (Annexure-7) passed by the Vice Chancellor, Magadh Universities (Respondent No. 6) whereby and whereunder in terms of the aforesaid communication dated 20.09.2017 contained in Memo No. 1703 (Annexure 6), the petitioners have been held to
UGC Regulations on appointment of teachers prevail over conflicting State Government Orders, mandating adherence to UGC standards for designation and pay fixation post-tenure.
The court established that a Senior Research Officer is classified as a Teacher under the university's statutes, entitled to benefits of extended service age.
Point of Law : Irrespective of whether the University Acts under Entry 25 of List III or the Statutes framed there under are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption b....
Point of Law : UGC regulations - There was no provision in the M.G. University Law for fixing the tenure of appointment of Principals as deemed to be permanent nature.
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
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
