The University has the power to appoint an ad hoc Principal In-charge of an affiliated college, and the appointment must be in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has assailed the order passed by the University dated 20th June 2019, whereby the University has directed to appoint the Respondent Dr. Shridhar Narayan Jha as the Principal In-charge of Shri Chhatradhari Sanskrit College, Hathua, Gopalganj and further directed the Principal In-charge to take steps of formation of the governing body.

2. The petitioner contends that he was handed over the charge of Principal of the college as the then Principal had proceeded on medical leave with effect from 16.11.2017. Since he was already holding the charge of Principal, there was no occasion for the University to have passed a fresh order of appointing Respondent No. 5 as Principal In-charge.

3. Learned counsel has also taken this Court to the letter dated 04.01.2018 sent by the Secretary of the governing body to the Vice Chancellor, whereby the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Principal In-charge of the college. An approval was sought from the University. Learned counsel submits that the University had no authority in law to itself appoint the Principal In-charge of the private aided affiliated college and the entire governance of the college wrests with the governing body of the institution. It is further submitted that the governing body had considered the comparative record of service of the Respondent No. 5 as well as one other teacher and had found the petitioner to be the most eligible candidate. In the teeth of the recommendations, the University could not have arbitrarily directed for appointing Respondent No. 5 as the Principal In-charge of the college.

4. Learned counsel has referred to statute 32 (2) (ii) of the Bihar Universities Act to contend that the syndicate alone has the power to take a decision with respect to any difficulty which may arise in formation or filling up of any seat in the governing body of any admitted college for any reason whatsoever. He submits that as the Principal In-charge is member of the Governing body, the said provision will have an application to the present circumstances and the order passed by the Registrar is without jurisdiction as the appointment of the Principal In-charge can only be made by the syndicate.

5. Learned counsel has further relied on judgment reported in 1997 (1) P.L.J.R. 509 Braj Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. by the Full Bench to submit that the University does not have the power to make appointment in a private affiliated college and referred to Para 10 of the Judgment.

“10. From bare perusal of the provisions it will appear that except Colleges which have been established and/or are maintained or governed by the State Government or Colleges which have been established by the religious or linguistic minority, other affiliated Colleges and the Universities are forbidden from creating teaching or non-teaching post, involving financial liabilities, and making any appointment without the prior approval of the State Government. Temporary appointment for period not exceeding six months can be made without the prior approval of the State Government against a teaching post provided the post is sanctioned and the candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications. The restraint envisaged by the section is thus two-fold – neither post can be created nor appointment can be made without the prior approval of the State Government. If a sanctioned post of teacher is available i.e. vacant, appointment can be made without the prior approval of the State Government but for a period not exceeding six months.”

6. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the order deserves to be quashed. The counsel further stated that the Respondent No. 5 was hand-in-gloves with the University and there was a planned method of appointing the Respondent No. 5 with the sole purpose to get governing body formed of the choice of the University. Learned counsel further alleged that the Respondent No. 5 who had been recommended by t