Patna High Court
Dayanand Jha vs The Vice Chancellor Kameshwar Singh ... on 29 October, 2018
Author: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Bench: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20790 of 2014
======================================================
Dayanand Jha S/O Late Gutar Jha, Resident of Village-Darhar, P.S-
Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Vice Chancellor Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga, Sanskrit University,
Darbhanga.
2. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.
3. The Principal, Ram Autar Gautam Sanskrit, College, Ahilya asthan,
Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. null null
4. The Regisrar, Ram Autar Gautam Sanskrit, College, Ahilya asthan,
Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sinha
For the University : Mr. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha
For the State : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG 15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-10-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-University.
This writ petition is pending since last four years. The
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of the
order dated 06.09.2014 passed by the Vice-Chancellor,
Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga,
whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary has been
rejected.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20790 of 2014 dt.29-10-2018
2/4
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
CWJC No. 23303 of 2011 which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2014. While disposing
of the writ petition the Court noted the basic fact that the petitioner
is working as Section Officer. The University in its counter
affidavit has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is working in
the college. From the pleadings of this case it is admitted factual
position that the petitioner has continuously been working in the
college for last nearly 37 years. The college in question was earlier
an affiliated unit. From paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit filed
by the Director, Higher Education, the respondent State has
admitted the fact that the college in question was converted into
constituent unit in the year 1982-83. Once the college was made a
constituent unit in the year 1982-83 the question of sanctioned
strength in terms of 1976 Circular lost its significance. The
respondents are not justified in harping on the Circular dated
18.10.1976to contend that only two posts of Clerk are admissible in Sanskrit College. Once the college is made a constituent unit by the University, the University is under obligation to take care of staffing pattern and the workload in the matter of sanction of post and the State is under obligation to accord sanction and adopt posts while exercising jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.20790 of 2014 dt.29-10-2018 3/4 State Universities Act. Posts are admissible according to the workload and the respondents cannot proceed on the basis that limited posts are available in Sanskrit College including the college in question whereas other colleges are receiving grant-in- aid including minority institutions. The University is free to increase the working strength of non-teaching staff based on workload.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court by order dated 08.08.2018 directed the respondents to file counter affidavit pointing out as to how the State can restrict the post of non- teaching employee in Sanskrit College contrary to need based and allow other institutions receiving grant-in-aid to increase number of non-teaching employee on need basis as State is State in all activities and cannot adopt different yardstick. There is no answer by the respondents in the present counter affidavit whereas the respondents by their sweet will have admitted the fact that the petitioner is working in the college which was made a constituent unit in 1982 for the last 37 years. The respondents are required to work out the entitlement of the petitioner for payment of salary considering the workload of the college in question and the fact that the petitioner has been regularly working for nearly 37 years, particularly in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court Patna High Court CWJC No.20790 of 2014 dt.29-10-2018 4/4 in the case of Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 265]. Necessary decision with regard to approval of the service of the petitioner and consequential benefits may be taken by the respondent University within sixty days and thereafter the State Government may take appropriate decision in the light of the policy decision contained in letter no. 1820 dated 18.11.1998 which was formulated in terms of the case of Braj Kishore Singh vs State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1997(1) PLJR 509] within a further period of two months from the date of decision of the University. The State Government is also required to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amarkant Rai (supra).
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) mrl./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 31.10.2018 Transmission Date N.A.