Patna High Court - Orders
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 10 November, 2022
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Nawneet Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.659 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8884 of 2020
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Singh
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari
For the University : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Priyank Deepak, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
5 10-11-2022Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Priyank Deepak, advocate for the Aryabhatta University. The State is represented by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari.
To recapitulate, the appellant being aggrieved by the refusal of the Registrar of the respondent/Aryabhat University refusing to countersign his academic experience, had chosen to seek a direction to the University for such counter signature by its Registrar.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.659 of 2021(5) dt.10-11-2022 2/6 The aforenoted writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the averments of the University that there was no document available in the records of the University in relation to the appellant's appointment in the Institute.
We had given anxious consideration over the matter and found that such ground was untenable for the reason that the University ought to maintain the records of the Institute which are affiliated to it or else there were sanctity attached to the certificate issued by such Institutions to students who pursue their studies in such Institutions primarily banking upon the affiliation of such Institutions with the University in question.
While canvasing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Kaushik drew the attention of this Court to a communication made by the University to the appellant, making him a co-examiner of the University in Mathematics subject for the year 2016.
By deductive logic, the learned counsel for the appellant has tried to demonstrate before this Court that the Patna High Court L.P.A No.659 of 2021(5) dt.10-11-2022 3/6 contention of the University that no records are maintained of affiliating Institutes is incorrect. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the University in this appeal, we find that a different ground has been taken altogether by the University in refusing to countersign the experience certificate as demanded by the appellant. The University has tried to explain the circumstances under which out-station examiners are appointed for evaluating the answer-sheet and that though a record of the affiliated Institutes is maintained with the University but there is no record of appointment of the appellant available in the University, for which necessary correspondence was made with the College in question which has never been replied.
This could be an explanation for not countersigning the experience certificate of the appellant.
However, the facts reveal otherwise.
By way of interlocutory application, the appellant has chosen to further challenge the policy decision of the University whereby it has been decided that the Registrar of the University shall not countersign the experience certificate Patna High Court L.P.A No.659 of 2021(5) dt.10-11-2022 4/6 of the teachers of the affiliated units for the reason that in the annual report of the University, the records of such teachers and their progress in the academic activities are not recorded. The further reasons for such decision is that there is no sanction required by the University for appointment of teachers in such affiliated units. There has not been any approval of the decision of the seniority in Pay Fixation Committee with respect to the records of the teachers of the affiliated units.
Though this was not the issue raised before the learned Single Judge but, considering the fact that the University has been blowing hot and cold in responding to the query of the Bench with regard to justification of the Registrar of the University not countersigning the experience certificate of a teacher who demands the same, we deem it necessary to confront the University with the aforenoted ground raised on behalf of the appellant.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in accordance with the Statute for appointment in various Universities in the State of Bihar, ten (10) marks are Patna High Court L.P.A No.659 of 2021(5) dt.10-11-2022 5/6 awardable to the certificate of experience, which shall not be taken cognizance of unless it is countersigned by the Registrar of the University. This makes it incumbent and obligatory upon the University to countersign the experience certificate after verification of the records of such teachers and there could be no justification for such a policy decision of not permitting the Registrar to countersign the experience certificate. It has also been submitted that it is absolutely incorrect that the affiliated units are independent entities with which the University has no concern as the University only recommends a candidate to be included in the Management Committee of such private colleges.
To maintain overall academic standard in affiliated units, it is the responsibility of the University to have the records updated and since the statute provides award of marks to a particular person for obtaining job in the University only in the event of the experience certificate having been countersigned, such policy decision is based on no logic.
Let a fresh counter affidavit on this issue be filed Patna High Court L.P.A No.659 of 2021(5) dt.10-11-2022 6/6 by the University as to on which ground can such policy decision be justified.
After the Court having observed this, the learned counsel for the University submits that the affiliated college, where the appellant worked, has also not been responding to the queries made by the University for the needful.
Under such circumstances, we further deem it imperative to issue notice to the College in question, which notice is accepted by Mr. Kaushik, learned advocate for the appellant, who undertakes to serve it to the Management of the College dasti.
This order be treated as form of notice to the College.
Re-notify on 24.11.2022.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) ( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) rishi/-
U