Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Anr vs Birendra Prasad Singh & Ors on 18 May, 2010
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.117 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. PROF. (DR.) JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE TIPAN PRASAD
SINGH R/O VILL.- FATEHPUR, POST- SAHAR RAMPUR, P.S. NAUBATPUR,
DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND PRINCIPAL,
PATNA TRAINING COLLEGE AND DEAN FACULTY OF EDUCATION,
PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA-800004
2. PROF. (DR.) BILAT PASWAN SHASTRI S/O LATE SITAI PASWAN R/O
VILL.- HARHACHA, POST- HARHACHA, P.S.- BAHERI, DISTT.-
DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND HEAD,
DEPTT. OF HINDI, B.N.COLLEGE, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA-800004.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
3. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PATNA
UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-800004
4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-
800004
5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH,
PATNA
6. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF H.R.D. UNION OF
INDIA, NEW DELHI
7. THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION THROUGH SECRETARY,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-2.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.278 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. THE VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
3. THE REGISTRAR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
-2-
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION, BAHADUR SAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
5. DR. YASH PAL SINGH S/O DHIRAJ NANDAN SINGH R/O MOH- SOUTH
LANE AMIRCHAND KOTHI, PAKRI, ARRAH, P.S NAWADA, DISTT-
BHOJPUR, AT ARRAH.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
WITH
LPA No.279 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. GOBARDHAN SINGH S/O LATE BHAGWAN SINGH R/O CHHAWARI
MOHALLA, WARD NO. 9, BHABUA, P.S. BHABUA, DISTT. KAIMUR AT
BHABUA, AT PRESENT PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPTT. OF HINDI
V.K.S.UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY,
ARRAH
4. THE REGISTRAR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH
5. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.280 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW
SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE CHOTU SINGH POSTED AS A
READER IN PHILOSOPHY DEPTT., SARDAR PATEL MEMORIAL
COLLEGE, UDWANTPURI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA.
-3-
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW
DELHI
3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY
4. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA
6. THE PRINCIPAL SARDAR PATEL MEMORIAL COLLEGE,
UDWANTPURI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.281 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH IS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR.NAVA KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O LATE SACHINDRA MOHAN
GOSWAMI PRESENTLY POSTED AS A PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS,
A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA
2. DR. UDAY PRASAD SINGH S/O SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
PRESENTLY POSTED AS A PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS,
A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
3. MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, GAYA
4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, GAYA
5. THE PRINCIPAL, A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA
6. THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH
ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI
7. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.282 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
-4-
Versus
1. PROF.(DR.)SATISH CHANDRA JHA S/O LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA JHA
R/O VILL.- CHANPURA (WEST), P.S. DHANUSI CHANPURA, DISTT.-
MADHUBANI AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR IN DEPTT. OF
SANSKRIT IN B.R. AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR,
RESIDING IN PROFESSOR'S QUARTER NO. 5, B.R. AMBEDKAR BIHAR
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR, B.R.AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A.BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
4. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
5. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF INDIA
6. THE UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.283 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. MIRA MRIDUBHASHINI W/O DR. PRAMOD KUMAR VERMA R/O
HOUSE NO. 224 A, PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, PATNA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA
3. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA
4. THE PRINCIPAL, ANUGRAH NARAYAN COLLEGE, S.K.PURI, PATNA-1.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.284 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
-5-
Versus
1. PROF SATAYENDRA LAL S/O LATE RAJKISHORE LAL R/O WARD NO.
4, MOHALLA- KRISHNAPURI, P.O. & P.S. DUMARA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR
UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
3. THE REGISTRAR, DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY,
MUZAFFARPUR
4. THE PRINCIPAL, L.K.COLLEGE, SITAMARHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.285 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPTT. OF
H.R.D., PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE PARMESHWAR
PRASAD MISHRA READER, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, M.K.S.COLLEGE,
TRIMUHAN CHANDAUNA, P.S. JALE, DISTT.- DARBHANGA
2. RAM KISHORE SINGH, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KAILASH SINGH
LECTURER, M.K.S.COLLEGE, TRIMUHAN CHANDAUNA, P.S. JALE,
DISTT.- DARBHANGA
3. MD. SHAFI HAIDER, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O LATE JAMIL AKHTAR
READER IN M.K.S.COLLEGE, TRIMUHAN CHANDAUNA, P.S. JALE,
DISTT.- DARBHANGA.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
4. LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR,
DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
5. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY,
KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.286 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
-6-
1. DR. DEBENDRA KUMAR DAS S/O LATE M.N.DAS R/O MARTU
MAINSION, JADISPURI LANE II, MITHANPURA, P.O. MUZAFFARPUR,
DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR
OF THE UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
4. THE REGISTRAR, THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.287 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
3. THE REGISTRAR, B.R.A.BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. UMESH SINGH S/O SRI MISHRI SINGH R/O MOHALLA- GANNIPUR,
SOUTH OF S.K.J.LAW COLLEGE, P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTT.-
MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
WITH
LPA No.288 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
DEPARTMENT OF H.R.D., PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. QURBAN HAIDER S/O LATE ZULFIDAR HAIDER @ BADAL BABU R/O
MOHALLA- NAYA QUILLA, P.S. SIWAN TOWN, DISTT.- SIWAN.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, DAK BUNGLA ROAD, CHAPRA THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, DAK BUNGLA
ROAD, CHAPRA
4. THE REGISTRAR, JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, DAK BUNGLA ROAD,
CHAPRA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.289 of 2010
-7-
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT. OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPTT. OF
H.R.D., PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. KAILASH PRASAD S/O LATE SRI RAM KESHWAR MAHTO
PROFESSOR-INCHARGE, DEPTT. OF PSYCHOLOGY, S.L.K.COLLEGE,
SITAMARHI, P.S. & DISTT.- SITAMARHI
2. NAGENDRA PRASAD THAKUR S/O LATE SUKHDEO PRASAD THAKUR
READER, DEPTT. OF HISTORY, S.L.K. COLLEGE, SITAMARHI, P.S. &
DISTT.- SITAMARHI
3. DR. RENU SINHA W/O RAN VIJAY KUMAR SINHA READER IN
PSYCHOLOGY IN DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA SMARAK COLLEGE,
MUZAFFARPUR, P.S. & DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
4. MAHENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE MOTI SAW READER IN CHEMISTRY IN
DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA SMARAK COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.
AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
5. IRFAN AHMED KHAN S/O LATE MUJIBUR RAHMAN KHAN READER IN
BOTANY IN DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA SMARAK COLLEGE,
MUZAFFARPUR, P.S. AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
6. ANIRUDHA ROY S/O LATE BASAWAN ROY READER IN MATH IN DR.
RAM MANOHAR LOHIA SMARAK COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S. AND
DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
7. DR. VIDYAWATI SAHU W/O LATE JAGDISH SAH READER IN HISTORY
IN DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA SMARAK COLLEGE, MUZAFFARPUR, P.S.
AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR
8. JITENDRA KUMAR JHA S/O LATE KAMESHWAR JHA READER IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE, S.L.K.COLLEGE, SITAMARHI, P.S. & DISTT.-
SITAMARHI
9. AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SRIWASTAVA S/O LATE BAIDYANATH
PRASAD READER IN PHILOSOPHY, T.P.VERMA COLLEGE,
NARKATIAGANJ, P.S. NARKATIAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN,
BETTIAH
10. DR. KRISHNA KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH
READER, DEPTT. OF PSYCHOLOGY, S.R.K.G.COLLEGE, SITAMARHI, P.S.
& DISTT.- SITAMARHI
11. DR. KRISHNA MURARI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE
SIYA PRASAD LECTURER, DEPTT. OF ZOOLOGY, S.R.K.G.COLLEGE,
SITAMARHI, P.S. & DISTT.- SITAMARHI.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
-8-
12. THE B.R.A UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
13. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.293 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, DEPTT. OF THE HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. BACHCHA MISHRA S/O LATE LAL BALBODH MISHRA R/O RING
BANDH, P.O. SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR
OF THE UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
4. THE REGISTRAR, THE B.R.A.UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.294 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA .
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. PROF.(DR.)KAMESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE AYODHYA PRASAD R/O
BAJRANG PATH, GULZARBAGH, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA AT
PRESENT HEAD OF DEPTT., DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, PATNA
UNIVERSITY, PATNA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PATNA
UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-800004
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH,
PATNA-800004
4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-
800004
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.295 of 2010
-9-
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. RAJ NANDAN YADAV S/O LATE RAMESHWAR YADAV, UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR, DEPTT. OF PHILOSOPHY, LALIT NARAIN MITHILA
UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA, P.S. UNIVERSITY
POLICE STATION, DISTT.- DARBHANGA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. VICE-CHANCELLOR, LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY,
KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA
3. THE REGISTRAR, LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY,
KAMESHWAR NAGAR, DARBHANGA
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI- 110002
5. THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR
SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI
6. THE CHAIRMAN UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH
ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.345 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. RAM YATAN THAKUR S/O LATE SHUKHDEO THAKUR R/O
KRISHNAPURI, MUNGER AT PRESENT POSTED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR
AND HEAD OF THE DEPTT. OF PHYSICS, R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE, MUNGER.
2. DR. SHYAM SUNDER ACHARIA S/O LATE BANKIM CHANDRA
ACHARIA RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. 4, R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE CAMPUS
AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPTT. OF
BOTANY, R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE, MUNGER.
3. DR. DIGAMBAR PRASAD SARBHAGYA S/O LATE B.B.GHOSH R/O
ROAD NO. 4, SHASTRINAGAR AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR
AND HEAD OF THE DEPTT. OF CHEMISTRY, R.D. & D.J.COLLEGE,
MUNGER.
- 10 -
4. RAMANUGRAH NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE SADASHIV SINGH
RESIDING AT MALITOLA BASUDEVPUR AT PRESENT READER IN THE
DEPTT. OF ZOOLOGY R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE, MUNGER.
5. PARMANAND JHA S/O SRI BHUBNESHWAR JHA RESIDING IN
QUARTER NO. 6, R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE CAMPUS, MUNGER AT PRESENT
READER IN THE DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE,
MUNGER.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
6. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR, RAJ BHAWAN, BIHAR,
PATNA
7. TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
TILKA MANJHI, BHAGALPUR
8. PRINCIPAL, R.D. & D.J. COLLEGE, SHASTRINAGAR, MUNGER.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.384 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY BIHAR,
PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR.YAMUNA PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE HARI PRASAD YADAV
PRESENTLY POSTED AN UNIVERSITY, PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS,
UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, TILKA MANJHI,
BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
BHAGALPUR
3. THE VICE - CHANCELLOR TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY,
BHAGALPUR
4. THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION BAHADUR
SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.354 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
- 11 -
1. CHANDRASHEKHAR CHAUDHARY S/O LATE SUBH NARAYAN
CHAUDHARY R/O WARD NO.3, ROAD NO.2, DUMRA, P.O. DUMRA, P.S.
SITAMARHI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE B.R.A. UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR
OF THE UNIVERSITY MUZAFFARPUR
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR THE B.R.A. UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR
4. THE REGISTRAR, THE B.R.A. UNIVERSITY MUZAFFARPUR.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.424 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR.DEVENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, POST GRADUATE, DEPARTMENT OF
HISTORY, BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY , BHAGALPUR.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY,
BHAGALPUR
4. THE SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR
SAH JAFFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.441 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. JANARDAN YADAV S/O LATE T.L. YADAV, PRINCIPAL M.L. ARYA
COLLEGE, KASBA, PURNEA.
2. MD. IRFAN S/O LATE HAMMIDUR RAHMAN, HEAD OF THE DEPTT. OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE ( P.G. ) B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA.
- 12 -
3. MD. HAMMIDUR RAHMAN S/O LATE SAIUDDUR RAHMAN, HEAD OF
THE DEPTT. OF URDU M.L. ARYA COLLEGE, KASBA, PURNEA.
4. SUNDESHWAR NARAYAN KARAN S/O LATE UDESHWAR NARAYAN
KARN, HEAD OF THE DEPTT. OF PSYCHOLOGY D.S. COLLEGE,
KATIHAR.
5. AMRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE NAGENDRA NARAYAN
SINGH, PRINCIPAL R.M. COLLEGE, SAHARSA.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
6. THE B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR
7. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA
8. THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SAH
JAFFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.519 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
SECRETARIATE, PATNA.
2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW
SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR.SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINHA S/O SATYADEO PD. SINHA POSTED
AS THE PROFESSOR IN HISTORY DEPARTMENT, NALANDA COLLEGE,
BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT - NALANDA.
2. SURENDRA PRASAD S/O SRI BHIMSEN PRASAD POSTED AS READER
IN BOTANY DEPARTMENT SARDAR PATEL MEMORIAL COLLEGE,
UDWANTPURI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT - NALANDA.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
3. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH, THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
NEW DELHI.
4. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH JAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY.
5. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
6. THE VICE - CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA
7. THE PRINCIPAL, NALANDA COLLEGE, BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT -
NALANDA
8. THE PRINCIPAL, SARDAR PATEL MEMORIAL COLLEGE,
UDWANTPURI, BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT - NALANDA
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
- 13 -
LPA No.526 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. PROF. (DR.) NIHAR NANDAN PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE SARYOOG
NANDAN PRASAD SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 34, ANANDPURI, WEST
BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S.- S.K.PURI, DISTT.- PATNA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PATNA
UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-800 004
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH,
PATNA-800 004
4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-800
004.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.574 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. AKHOURY ANANTESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE AKHOURY
HARIHAR PRASAD R/O MOHALLA- A-38, PEOPLES COOPERATIVE
COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.O. & P.S. KANKARBAGH, PATNA-020, AT
PRESENT WORKING AS READER IN ZOOLOGY, B.N. COLLEGE, ASHOK
RAJPATH, PATNA, PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA-800004.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR PATNA
UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA - 800004
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, PATNA UNIVERSITY, ASHOK RAJPATH,
PATNA-800004.
4. THE REGISTRAR, PATNA UNIVERSITY ASHOK RAJ PATH, PATNA-
800004
- 14 -
5. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF H.R.D. DEPARTMENT, THROUGH EDUCATION, GOVT. OF
INDIA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.578 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE MAHESHWAR NARAYAN SINGH
R/O VILL.- MAJRA, P.S. YOGIYARA, P.S. JALE, DISTT.- DARBHANGA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR
NAGAR, DARBHANGA.
3. THE REGISTRAR L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, KAMESHWAR NAGAR,
DARBHANGA.
4. THE PRINCIPAL M.K.S. COLLEGE TRIMUHAN, CHANDAUNA,
DARBHANGA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.579 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
2. DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
DEPARTMENT OF H.R.D., PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE
PRATAP BHANU VERMA READER ZOOLOGY, K.S. COLLEGE,
LAHERIASARAI, DARBHANGA, P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.-
DARBHANGA.
2. DR. KUMARKANT PATHAK S/O LATE RAJKANT PATHAK, UNIVERSITY
PROFESSOR IN MAITHILI, L.N.J. COLLEGE, JHANJHARPUR AT
JHANJHARPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI.
3. RAMANUJ SINGH S/O LATE JAGARNATH SINGH, READER,
CHEMISTRY, G.M.R.D. COLLEGE, MOHANPUR, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.-
SAMASTIPUR.
- 15 -
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
4. THE L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR.
5. VICE-CHANCELLOR L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY, DARBHANGA.
6. THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR
SHAH ZAFFAR MARG, NEW DELHI.
7. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY H.R.D.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.580 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. PROF. (DR.) TARKESHWAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM BACHAN SINGH R/O
QUARTER NO. A/8, MAGADH UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, BODH GAYA, P.S.-
BODH GAYA, DISTT.- GAYA, AT PRESENT HEAD, UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND DEAN FACULTY OF SCIENCES,
MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR MAGADH
UNIVERSITY, P.O. & P.S.- BODH GAYA, GAYA.
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA,
DISTT.- GAYA, BIHAR.
4. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY P.O. & P.S.- BODH GAYA,
GAYA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.416 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
- 16 -
1. KISHORI SHARAN S/O LATE RAM PRIT SHARMA R/O ROAD NO.10,
SANJAY GANDHI NAGAR, HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH,
P.S.PATRAKARNAGAR, DISTT-PATNA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR MAGADH
UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, DISTT-GAYA, BIHAR.
3. THE VICE -CHANCELLOR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA,
DISTT-GAYA, BIHAR.
4. THE REGISTRAR MAGADH UNIVERSITY, P.O. & P.S. BODH GAYA,
GAYA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.589 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,
PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. RAMESHWAR PRASAD S/O LATE HARI CHARAN PRASAD R/O
MOHALLA- A/364 (A), A.G.COLONY, P.O. ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. SHASTRI
NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA AT PRESENT READER, DEPARTMENT OF
PHYSICS, RAM LAKHAN SINGH YADAV COLLEGE, BAKHTIYARPUR,
PATNA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, MAGADH
UNIVERSITY, P.O. & P.S. BODH GAYA, GAYA
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, P.O. & P.S. BODH
GAYA, GAYA
4. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, P.O. & P.S. BODH GAYA,
GAYA
5. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 11002.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.592 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
- 17 -
Versus
1. DR. RANDHIR SINGH SON OF LATE SRIRAM SINGH, AT PRESENT UNIVERSITY
PROF. OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA.
2. DR. BHIMSEN SINGH SON OF LATE SRI RAMHIWAN SINGH, AT PRESENT
READER AND H.O.D. IN CHEMISTRY, A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA.
3. KESHAVA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE RAMJI SINGH, AT PRESENT
LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, A.N.COLLEGE, PATNA.
4. DHARMBIR PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAGHUNATH PRASAD, AT PRESENT
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, A.N. COLLEGE, PATNA FOR
RETIRAING AT 65 YEARS.
.... .... PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS
5. MAGAGH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, DISTRICT GAYA.
6. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA.
7. THE PRINCIPAL, S.P.M. COLLEGE, UNDANTPURI, BIHARSHARIF, NALANDA.
8. THE PRINCIPAL, A.N.S. COLLEGE, BARH, DISTRICT PATNA.
9. THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, DELHI.
10. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
WITH
LPA No.401 of 2010
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT.
OF BIHAR, PATNA.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS
Versus
1. DR. BHUPENDRA NARAYAN YADAV S/O LATE NATHAN PRASAD YADAV,
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, T.P.COLLEGE, MADHEPURA.
.... .... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT
2. B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, DISTRICT MADHEPURA
3. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA, DISTT.-
MADHEPURA
4. THE PRINCIPAL, T.P.COLLEGE, MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA
5. THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI.
.... .... RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS
-----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.-III, Mr. Piyush Lal and
Mr. Satyabir Bharti, ACs to AAG-III.
For the respondents: Mr. Binod Kanth, Senior Advocate,
/ intervenors: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate,
Mr. B.P. Pandey, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Mr. Pawan Kumar, Mr.
Pramod Mishra, Mr. Indu Bhushan Pandey, Mr.
Jiwan Prakash Sinha, Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj,
Mr. Raghav Prasad, Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar,
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sharan,
- 18 -
Mr. Hemant Kr, Sharan, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh
Mr. Virendra Prasad, Mr. Abbas Haider,
Mr.Vidya Sagar & Mr. Sameer Kr.Ranjan,Advocate
For the U.G.C. : Mr. P.N. Shahi and
Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocates.
For V.K.S.Univ. : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate.
For J.P. Univ. : Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate.
For T.M.B.univ. : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate.
For L.N.M.Univ. : Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate.
----------
PRESENT-
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
ORDER
(18.05.2010)
As per Dipak Misra, C.J.-
Regard being had to the similitude of the
controversy involved in this batch of letters patent appeals,
they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this
common order. As the grievance has been projected in a
common canvass, the facts from CWJC No. 2330 of 2009
which has given rise to L.P.A. No. No. 117 of 2010 are
exposited herein below.
2. The seminal issue that emanates for consideration
is whether in the backdrop of the letter dated 31.12.2008
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Human
Resources and Development, Department of Higher
- 19 -
Education, Government of India in the context of Section 64
of the Patna University Act, 1976 (for brevity `Patna
University Act') and Section 67(a) of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976 (for short `the 1976 Act'), the age of
superannuation of teachers working in different universities
and colleges of Bihar would automatically be enhanced to 65
years in view of the decision of the University Grants
Commission (for short `the UGC').
4. The writ petitioners-respondents no. 1 & 2 herein
were to superannuate on 28.02.2009 and 31.03.2009
respectively. On the recommendations of the UGC, the
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Department of Higher Education issued a letter
no. F-1-22/97-UI dated 27.07.1998 addressed to the
Secretary, UGC conveying the decision regarding the age of
superannuation and other terms and conditions of service of
teachers. It has been specifically mentioned in the said letter
that the age of superannuation of the university and college
teachers would be 62 years and thereafter no extension shall
be granted. In view of the above notification, the age of
superannuation of teachers in the Patna University was also
- 20 -
enhanced from 60 to 62 years by making an amendment in
Section 64 of the Patna University Act. Thereafter, the
Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Department
of Higher Education, Government of India vide letter dated
23.03.2007 decided the age of superannuation of all persons
who were holding teaching positions on regular employment
against sanctioned posts as on 15.03.2007 in any of the
centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions
under the said Ministry to be enhanced from 62 years to 65
years. The UGC by letter dated 30.03.2007 / 04.04.2007
circulated the aforesaid letter to the Registrars of all the
Central / Deemed Universities as well as the Registrars of the
State Universities for information and necessary action.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid information, writ
petitions forming the subject matter of CWJCs No. 4823 and
5390 of 2008 were filed before this Court for enhancement of
the age of superannuation. This Court did not entertain the
said writ petitions and dismissed the same vide order dated
24.06.2008. A similar writ petition filed on behalf of the B.R.
Ambedkar Bihar University Senior Teachers' Association,
being CWJC No. 4843 of 2008, also met with the same fate.
- 21 -
The learned single Judge had declined to allow the relief on
the foundation that there was no conscious decision by the
UGC for enhancement of the age of retirement in the State
Universities to attract Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and
Section 64(a) of the Patna University Act. The Letters Patent
Appeals preferred against the said decision did not meet with
success.
6. When the matter stood thus as set forth, the UGC in
its meeting dated 7th & 8th October, 2008 had taken a
conscious decision and on its recommendations, the Central
Government had revised the pay scales and enhanced the age
of superannuation of the teachers of the Central Universities
to 65 years. A notification to the said effect had been issued
by the Government of India. A reference has been made to
letter no. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) issued by the Ministry of
Human Resources Development, Department of Higher
Education on 31.12.2008 which was addressed to the
Secretary, UGC with a copy to the Chief Secretaries of all the
States wherein the Government of India had extended the
benefit of the scheme to the teachers of the Universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions falling
- 22 -
under the purview of the State Legislature. Relying on the
said letter, it was contended in the writ petition that the UGC
recommendation is to be implemented as a package as
envisaged in para 8(p)(v)(g) regarding the applicability of the
scheme. It is put forth that the age of superannuation is an
essential component of the package. It is also urged that the
UGC since its inception has never prescribed two sets of age
of superannuation, one for the Central Universities and the
other for the State Universities. The Central Government
having accepted and notified the same, it is obligatory on the
part of the State Government and its Universities to issue
necessary orders to enhance the age of superannuation to all
teachers to 65 years in the light of Section 67(a) of the 1976
Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act. It was the
stand of the writ petitioners that the earlier writ petition was
dismissed because no conscious decision with respect to the
State Universities had been taken but now it cannot be said
that no conscious decision had been taken. Emphasis has
been laid to show that the legislative intent is absolutely clear
that once a decision has been taken by the UGC to enhance
the age, the same has to be given effect to. In this backdrop, a
- 23 -
prayer has been made to issue a command of mandamus to
the respondents (appellants herein) to enhance the age of
superannuation of the writ petitioners and other like teachers
from 62 years to 65 years.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State contending, inter alia, that mere communication of the
revision of pay of teachers by the Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of
Higher Education to the UGC would not automatically
enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners. Be it
noted, this was the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the
State.
8. The Patna University has also filed a counter
affidavit contending, inter alia, that the University has no
jurisdiction to extend the age of superannuation as it comes
within the domain of the State Government to implement the
UGC scales of pay and age of superannuation and only
thereafter the University takes appropriate steps.
9. A reply has been filed to the State's counter
affidavit by the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the order
dated 31.12.2008, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is a
- 24 -
policy decision by the UGC for enhancement of the age of
superannuation and the State Government is bound by the
legislative mandate under Section 64 of the Patna University
Act and Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act. A reference has been
made to the letter dated 28.02.1999 addressed by the UGC to
all the Education Secretaries of all the State Governments to
take action to adopt the above Government of India scheme
for the State Universities and Colleges and payment of pay
scales, enhancement of retirement age and the method of
release of arrears. After the said reply came to be filed, the
State had filed a detailed return putting forth the stance that
the letter of the UGC dated 27.02.2009 bears reference to the
Government of India's letter dated 31.12.2008 for which the
Government of India has been requested vide department
letter no. 233 dated 25.03.2009 to send the letter to this
department. A reply has been filed to the said letter.
10. A further return has been filed that on scrutiny of
the communication dated 31.12.2008, it is manifest that the
said communication was issued by the Higher Education to
the UGC relating to the scheme of revision of the pay scales
of teachers in the Central Universities. A decision was taken
- 25 -
therein that there would be revision of pay scales of those
categories of teachers subject to various provisions of the
scheme of revision as contained in the said letter. It is evident
from the said letter that it pertains to the teachers of Central
Universities and it has been stated that the State Government
wishes to adopt and implement the said letter subject to
certain terms and conditions. The State Government has not
adopted the said scheme as spelt out in the said letter in the
light of the recommendations of the Government of India.
11. A reference has been made to the stand of the
UGC in L.P.A. No. No. 564 of 2008 wherein it has been
asseverated that the UGC had not framed any regulation
specifying the age of superannuation of the teachers in the
State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. It was
further stated that the State Government may specify the age
of superannuation as 60 years or 62 years or 65 years or any
other age as the age of superannuation of the teachers in the
State Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto. It is
stated that the communication dated 28.02.2009 can also not
be regarded as a decision of the UGC with regard to
enhancement of the age of superannuation of teachers of the
- 26 -
Universities of Bihar. The said communication on the other
hand has simply forwarded a copy of the Government of
India's letter dated 31.12.2008 to the State Governments with
the liberty that the State Governments may take action to
adopt the above Government of India scheme for State
Universities and Colleges and payment of pay-scales,
enhancement of retirement age and release of 40% of the
arrears during the current financial year in accordance with
those provisions. It is the stance in the return that on
04.05.2009 when the matter was heard by the learned single
Judge, it was adjourned to apprise the Court as to what
decision the State Government has taken for enhancement of
the age of superannuation. The Department vide letter no. 457
dated 11.05.2009 requested the UGC to make available the
regulations regarding enhancement of the age of
superannuation of teachers of the State Universities from 62
years to 65 years. Thereafter, vide letter no. 563 dated
26.05.2009, the State Government requested the UGC to
make available the specific decision of the Commission and
the grounds of enhancement of the age of superannuation.
Thereafter, the UGC letter no. F 3-9/2000 (PS) dated
- 27 -
28.05.2009 simply forwarded a copy of the UGC letter dated
04.04.2007 wherein it has been stated that it would be open to
the concerned State Governments to prescribe the age of
superannuation of teachers. As set forth, on a perusal of the
letter dated 11.05.2009 and letter dated 26.05.2009, it is clear
that the State Government had requested the UGC to make
available the decision of the Commission for enhancing the
age of superannuation but the Commission forwarded a copy
of the letter which clearly means that the Commission had
taken the decision whatever has been communicated vide
letter dated 04.04.2007. It was considered by this Court on
earlier occasion. In essence, the stand of the State
Government is that the UGC has not yet taken a decision for
enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62 years to
65 years of the teachers of the State Universities. It is
contended that in the absence of the decision of the UGC, the
provision contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and
Section 64 of the Patna University Act did not come into play
and, therefore, the relief as claimed by the petitioners is not
tenable in law.
12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7 th
- 28 -
respondent - UGC contending, inter alia, that vide the letter
dated 27.07.1998, the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resources Development, Department of Education,
informed the Education Secretaries of all the States / Union
Territories regarding revision of pay scales of teachers in
Universities and Colleges following the revision of pay scales
of Central Government employees on the recommendations
of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. A suggestion was
given that the State Government wishes to adopt and
implement the scheme of revision of pay scales subject to
certain terms and conditions. In the said letters the
Government of India had conveyed its decision after taking
into consideration the recommendations made by the UGC
regarding the revision of the pay scales of teachers in the
Central Universities. In paragraph 1(vi), it was specified that
the age of superannuation of university and college teachers
would be 62 years and thereafter no extension in service
should be given. However, it would be open to the university
or college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to
the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65
years. Various other chronological facts have been narrated as
- 29 -
to how the steps have been taken by the UGC from time to
time. It is asserted that the UGC in exercise of its power
conferred under Section 26(I)(e) & (f) read with Section 14 of
the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short `the
1956 Act') framed the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualifications required for the appointment and
career advancement of teachers in universities and institutions
affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000 (for short `the 2000
Regulation'). The 2000 Regulation provided for the age of
superannuation.
13. The Ministry of Human Resources Development
(MHRD), Department of Higher Education, Government of
India vide letter dated 23.03.2007 informed the Secretary,
UGC that in the light of the existing shortage in teaching
positions in the centrally funded institutions in higher and
technical education under the MHRD and in the context of
Government's decision to expand the capacities of such
institutions for increasing access to higher education and for
implementing the policy of reservation for the weaker
sections without affecting the number of seats in the
unreserved category available through general merit, it has
- 30 -
been decided that the age of superannuation of all person who
were holding teaching positions on regular employment
against the sanctioned posts as on 15.03.2007 in any of the
centrally funded higher and technical educational institutions
under the Ministry shall be increased from 62 years to 65
years. A reference has been made to paragraph 3 of the said
letter to highlight that the enhancement of retirement age
would apply only to persons in teaching posts against the
posts sanctioned to centrally funded higher and technical
educational institutions falling under the purview of the
MHRD. The said circular was circulated to the Registrars of
all centrally / deemed universities with a request to bring the
same to the notice of all the affiliated colleges for necessary
action. The clarificatory letter has clearly spelt out that the
provisions of the Ministry's letter dated 23.03.2007 would not
be applicable to any other categories of employees in such
institutions. It is asserted in the counter affidavit that since
Patna University is a State University and not funded and
maintained by the UGC, the age of superannuation as notified
by the MHRD vide letter dated 23.03.2007 is not applicable
to the teachers in Patna University and the colleges affiliated
- 31 -
thereto. It is further urged that as far as the letter dated
31.12.2008 issued by the Department of Higher Education,
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of
India addressed to the Secretary, UGC regarding the scheme
of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in
university and colleges following the revision of pay scales of
the Central Government employees on the recommendations
of the Sixth Central Pay Commission is concerned, the same
was done consequent upon the age of superannuation. It has
been mentioned therein that consequent upon the upward
revision of the age of superannuation of teachers, the Central
Government has already authorized the Central Universities
vide Department of Higher Education D.O. letter no. F. 1-
24/2006-Desk (U) dated 30.03.2007 to enhance the age of
superannuation of Vice Chancellors of Central Universities
from 65 years to 70 years. In the said return, it has been
clearly stated that the age of superannuation from 62 to 65
years is for the teachers of Central Universities and the
colleges affiliated thereto and it is open to the State
Universities and the colleges affiliated thereto and the
concerned State Government to adopt the same.
- 32 -
14. A reply has been filed to the counter affidavit by
the 7th respondent stating, inter alia, that the UGC has not
framed any regulation as the age of superannuation can never
be considered to be an eligibility criterion for any post. It has
been, thus, asserted that the UGC desired that there should be
enhancement of age. It has been put forth that the UGC in its
counter affidavit has not stated that its recommendations were
limited only with respect to the teachers of Central
Universities and rightly so since the Chadda Commission
constituted by the UGC had recommended that the age of
superannuation of teachers should uniformly be 65 years. It is
averred that the letter dated 31.12.2008 was meant for the
Central Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto and the
State Governments are required to adopt the same to make it
applicable in their States. In other words, it is being stated
that the age of superannuation of the teachers of Central
Universities has been enhanced and the State Government
may adopt the same. It is highlighted that by virtue of the
amendments brought in the 1976 Act and the Patna
University Act, the retirement age of a teaching employee
will be the same as decided by the UGC in future and when
- 33 -
the UGC has fairly admitted that it is open to the State
Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto to adopt the same,
there is a deemed adoption. It is also asserted that the UGC
does not frame regulations to take decision and once a
decision has been taken, the same has to be respected as the
amended provision. When the UGC uses the words `may'
and `it is open' in the letter dated 27.02.2009, they only
indicate that the recommendations are not mandatory but by
the amending provisions, the University has made it
applicable per se.
15. We have heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned
Additional Advocate General-III along with Mr. Satyabir
Bharti, AC to AAG-III for the appellants, Mr. Binod Kanth,
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh and Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned
Senior Counsels appearing for the private respondents along
with Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Mr. Raghav Prasad & Mr.
Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel along
with Mr. Ramchandra Singh, for the University Grants
Commission, Mr. Ajay Bihar Sinha, Mr. Shivendra Kishore,
Mr. Anil Singh and Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsels
appearing for the universities.
- 34 -
16. The thrust of the matter is whether the UGC has
taken a decision to enhance the age. Vide letter dated
04.04.2007, the Joint Secretary of the UGC had
communicated to the Registrars of all central and deemed
universities as follows:
"Kindly find enclosed a copy of letter No. 1-
19/2006-U-II dated 23rd March, 2007 received
from the Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education
regarding enhancement in the age of
superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching
positions in centrally funded institutions in
higher and technical education for compliance."
17. In the first instance, we may sit in a time machine
and refer to the letter dated 23.03.2007. The subject therein
relates to enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62
to 65 years for teaching positions in centrally funded
institutions in higher and technical education. Paragraphs 2
and 3 of the said letter read as under:
"2. The matter has been reviewed by the
Central Government in the light of the existing
shortage in teaching positions in the centrally
funded institutions in higher and technical
education under this Ministry, and in the
- 35 -
context of Government's decision to expand the
capacities of such Institutions for increasing
access to higher education and for
implementing the policy of reservations for the
weaker sections without affecting the number
of seats in the unreserved category available
through general merit. Accordingly, it has been
decided that-
(i) The age of superannuation of all persons
who were holding teaching positions on regular
employment against sanctioned posts as on
15.3.2007 in any of the centrally funded higher
and technical educations under this Ministry
shall be increased from present 62 years to 65
years.
(ii) Persons holding such regular teaching
positions who have superannuated prior to
15.3.2007 on attaining the age of 62 years but
have not attained the age of 65 years may be re-
employed against vacant sanctioned teaching
positions till they attain the age of 65 years, in
accordance with the guidelines framed by the
University Grants Commission.
(iii) All persons holding teaching positions
against sanctioned posts may also be considered
for re-employment beyond 65 years and up to
the age of 70 years, against sanctioned vacant
posts, if such posts are not filled up by regular
candidates. However, such re-employments
- 36 -
beyond the age of 65 years shall be done only
after screening at the age of 65 years, under the
extant guidelines of the University Grants
Commission.
3. It is further clarified that the enhancement of
retirement age as mentioned above and the
provision for re-employment, will apply only to
persons in teaching positions against posts
sanctioned to Centrally funded higher and
technical education institutions coming under
the purview of this Ministry, in order to
overcome the shortage of teachers."
18. The said letter came to be interpreted in the case
of Prof. Dr. Ravindra Prasad & Ors. V. The State of
Bihar & Ors. and other connected matter, 2008 (3)
PLJR 476. The learned single Judge has interpreted the said
letter in paras 5 and 6 as follows:
"5. In fact, the petitioners' reliance is on the letter
dated 23rd March 2007 issued by the Government
of India in the Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Department of Higher Education to
the UGC (Annexure-2 to the first writ application)
by which the Central Government issued a policy
directive to the UGC for enhancement of College
Teachers from the present 62 years to 65 years.
- 37 -
This, the petitioners urge, is a direction in terms of
Section 20 of the UGC Act and binding on UGC as
would be apparent from paragraph-4 of the said
communication by which Central Government
directs UGC to issue necessary notification in this
regard. It is then submitted that UGC by its letter
dated 04th of April 2007, as communicated to the
Registrars of all Central/Deemed Universities
(Annexure-1 to the first writ application), directed
the said Universities to act in accordance with the
letter dated 23rd March, 2007 of the Central
Government. Copy of this letter of the UGC was
marked to the Registrar of the State Universities
and all Secretaries of the States. It is, thus,
submitted that there being a valid and binding
direction by the Central Government to the UGC
in terms of Section 20 with regard to increase of
age of retirement to 65 years and consequently
direction of UGC to the Universities to implement
the Central Government's directives, it should be
deemed that so far as Teachers of Universities in
Bihar are concerned, they would automatically
now retire at the age of 65 years and not 62 years.
In my view, having considered the matter, the
submission cannot be accepted.
6. A reference to the policy directive of the Central
Government dated 23rd March, 2007 (Annexure-2)
would clearly show that it was not a general
- 38 -
direction issued by the Central Government in
relation to all teaching staff of all Universities. In
so many words, the decision is qualified and
restricted to centrally funded institutions in
higher and technical education only. The reason
for such restrictive implementation is also to be
found in the said communication which is in order
to overcome the shortage of Teachers in centrally
funded higher and technical education institutions.
It is not the case of the petitioners nor could it be
their case that the Universities of Bihar are
"centrally funded higher and technical education
institutions". Thus, in my view, Annexure-2 is not
such a binding direction by the Central
Government in terms of Section 20 of the UGC
Act in respect of all Universities. Then referring to
the letter dated 04th April 2007 (Annexure-1 to the
first writ application) of UGC, it would be seen
that the same is addressed only to the Registrars of
Central/Deemed Universities and not to all
Universities in general. Then the letter again
refers to teaching positions in centrally funded
institutions in the higher and technical education
which expression, to my mind and as held above,
would not include the Universities of Bihar as the
Universities of Bihar are not funded by the Central
Government though they do receive grants from
UGC. In my view, central funding of University is
distinct and different from grants from UGC.
- 39 -
Thus, even this communication of UGC, though
copies of which have been marked to all the State
Universities and all the State Secretaries, cannot be
taken to be a decision much less a conscious
decision on part of UGC to increase the age of
retirement of all Teachers in all Universities. The
conscious decision of the Central Government, as
adopted and echoed by the UGC, is limited and
restricted to centrally funded institutions in the
higher and technical education which certainly
does not include the Universities in the State of
Bihar."
19. After so stating, the learned single Judge opined
that the decision of the UGC was not of general application
to all Universities but only to centrally funded institutions
and, eventually, the learned single Judge held thus:
"9. That being the factual position, there is no
conscious decision of the UGC increasing the age
of retirement of Teachers in the Universities of
Bihar to the age of 65 years in terms to attract
Section 67 (a) of the Bihar Act. Thus, the relief
claimed by the petitioners are misconceived in fact
and not available in law."
20. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal, being L.P.A.
No. No. 564 of 2008, was preferred. The said appeal was
- 40 -
decided on 21.10.2008 wherein the Division Bench of this
Court referred to the letter dated 23.03.2007 and the letter
dated 04.04.2007. Thereafter, the Bench referred to Section
67 of the 1976 Act and speaking through the learned Chief
Justice held as follows:
"6. For the purpose of the present case, the
relevant provision is clause (a) of section 67 of
the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which
provides that the date of retirement of a teaching
employee of the University or of a College shall
be the date on which he attains the age of sixty
two years. It further provides that the date of
retirement of all teaching employees will be the
same which would be decided by the University
Grants Commission in future.
7. That the University Grants Commission has
not taken any decision with regard to the
Universities of Bihar which are not centrally
funded is apparent from the letters dated 23 rd
March, 2007 and 4th April, 2007 which are
unambiguous in terms that enhancement of
retirement age from 62 to 65 years is only
applicable to the persons in teaching positions
against posts sanctioned to centrally funded
higher and technical education institutions
coming under the purview of the Ministry of
- 41 -
Higher Education in order to overcome the
shortage of teachers. The decision of the
enhancement of retirement age from 62 to 65
years by the University Grants Commission is,
thus, confined only to those teaching employees
holding teaching position against sanctioned
posts in centrally funded higher and technical
education Institutions and not to other
Universities. This is further clarified by the
University Grants Commission itself in its
counter affidavit. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of its
counter affidavit, the University Grants
Commission stated before this Court thus :
"11. That it is respectfully submitted that it
is apparent from reading of the aforesaid
letter dated 23.03.2007 of the Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Government
of India, that the enhancement in the age of
superannuation from 62 to 65 years for
teaching positions is applicable in respect of
only centrally funded institutions in higher
and technical education.
12. That in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is respectfully submitted
that the University Grants Commission has
not framed any Regulation specifying the
age of superannuation of the teachers in the
- 42 -
State Universities and the Colleges affiliated
thereto. In the circumstances, it is open to the
State Government to specify the 60 year or
62 year or 65 year or any other age as the age
of superannuation of the teachers in the State
Universities and the colleges affiliated
thereto."
8. There cannot be more clarity in the stand of
the University Grants Commission that the
enhancement in the age of superannuation from
62 to 65 years for teaching positions is applicable
in respect of only centrally funded institutions in
higher and technical education and that the
University Grants Commission has not framed
any Regulation specifying the age of
superannuation of the teachers in the State
Universities and the Colleges affiliated thereto."
[Emphasis supplied]
21. The spine of the present litigation is the letter
dated 31.12.2008. In the said letter, the subject pertains to the
scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in
universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales
of central government employees on the recommendations of
the Sixth Central Pay Commission. At the beginning of the
- 43 -
letter, it has been stated as follows:
"I am directed to say that the Government of India
have decided, after taking into consideration the
recommendations made by the University Grants
Commission (UGC) based on the decisions taken
at the meeting of the Commission held on 7-8
October, 2008, to revise the pay scales of teachers
in the Central Universities. The revision of pay
scale of teachers shall be subject to various
provisions of the Scheme of revision of pay scales
as contained in this letter, and Regulations to be
framed by the UGC. In this behalf in accordance
with the Scheme given below. The revised pay
scales and other provisions or the Scheme are as
under."
[Underlining is ours]
22. From the aforesaid decision of this Court and the
subject which finds mention in the letter dated 31.12.2008,
two aspects are highlighted, namely, that this Court had taken
note of the stand of the UGC that the latter circular was
applicable in respect of only centrally funded institutions in
higher and technical education and the UGC had not framed
any Regulation specifying the age of superannuation of
teachers in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated
- 44 -
thereto and further that Regulations are required to be framed
by the UGC.
23. Thereafter, paragraph 1 deals with General
concept. Paragraph 2 deals with Revised Pay Scales, Service
conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and
equivalent positions. Paragraph 3 deals with Pay Scales of
Pro-Vice Chancellor / Vice Chancellor of Universities.
Paragraph 4 deals with pay scales of Principals in Colleges.
Paragraph 5 deals with Pay Scales and Career Advancement
Scheme for Librarians, etc. Paragraphs 6 to 11 deal with other
terms and conditions of services. Paragraph 8 deals with
other terms and conditions. It provides for (a) Increments, (b)
Pay Fixation Formula, (c) Allowances, (d) Study Leave, (e)
Research Promotion Grant and many other aspects. Clause
(f) of the said paragraph deals with `Age of Superannuation'.
The same, being pivotal to the issue, is reproduced below:
"(f) Age of Superannuation:
(i) In order to meet the situation arising out of
shortage of teachers in universities and other
teaching institutions and the consequent vacant
positions therein, the age of superannuation of
teachers in Central Educational Institutions has
already been enhanced to sixty five years, vide the
- 45 -
Department of Higher Education letter No.
F.No.1-19/2006-U.II dated 23.3.2007, for those
involved in class room teaching in order to attract
eligible persons to the teaching career and to
retain teachers in service for a longer period.
Consequent on upward revision of the age of
superannuation of teachers, the Central
Government has already authorized the Central
Universities, vide Department of Higher Education
D.O. letter No.F.1-24/2006-Desk(U) dated
30.3.2007 to enhance the age of superannuation of
Vice-Chancellors of Central Universities from 65
to years to 70 years, subject to amendments in the
respective statutes, with the approval of the
competent authority (Visitor in the case of Central
Universities).
(ii) Subject to availability of vacant positions and
fitness, teachers shall also be re-employed on
contract appointment beyond the age of sixty five
years up to the age of seventy years. Re-
employment beyond the age of superannuation
shall, however, be done selectively, for a limited
period of 3 years in the first instance and then for
another further period of 2 years purely on the
basis of merit, experience, area of specialization
and peer group review and only against available
vacant positions without affecting selection or
promotion prospects of eligible teachers.
- 46 -
(iii) Whereas the enhancement of the age of
superannuation for teachers engaged in class room
teaching is intended to attract eligible persons to a
career in teaching and to meet the shortage of
teachers by retaining teachers in service for a
longer period, and whereas there is no shortage in
the categories of Librarians and Directors of
Physical Education, the increase in the age of
superannuation from the present sixty two years
shall not be available to the categories of
Librarians and Directors of Physical Education."
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Clause (p)
which deals with `Applicability of the Scheme'. The same,
being relevant, is reproduced below:
"(p) Applicability of the Scheme:
(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and
other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical
Education in all the Central Universities and
Colleges there-under and the institutions Deemed
to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure
is met by the UGC. The implementation of the
revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of
all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well
as Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this
behalf. Universities implementing this Scheme
shall be advised by the UGC to amend their
- 47 -
relevant statues and ordinances in line with the
UGC Regulations within three months from the
date of issue of this letter.
(ii) This Scheme does not extend to the cadres of
Registrar, Finance Officer and Controller of
Examinations for which a separate Scheme is
being issues separately.
(iii) This Scheme does not extend to the
Accompanists, Coaches, Tutors and
Demonstrators, Pay and Grade Pay of the said
categories of employees shall be fixed in the
appropriate Pay Bands relative to their existing
Pay in each university/institution corresponding to
such fixation in respect of Central Government
employees as approved by the Central Government
on the basis of the recommendations of 6th Central
Pay Commission.
(iv) This Scheme does not extend to the posts of
professionals like System Analysts, Senior
Analysts, Research Officers etc. who shall be
treated at par with similarly qualified personnel in
research/scientific organizations of the Central
Government.
(v) This Scheme may be extended to universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions
- 48 -
coming under the purview of State legislatures,
provided State Governments wish to adopt and
implement the scheme subject to the following
terms and conditions:
(a) Financial assistance from the Central
Government to State Governments opting to revise
pay scales of teachers and other equivalent cadre
covered under the Scheme shall be limited to the
extent of 80% (eighty percent of the additional
expenditure involved in the implementation of the
revision.
(b) The State Government opting for revision of
pay shall meet the remaining 20% (twenty percent)
of the additional expenditures from its own
sources.
(c) Financial assistance referred to in sub-clause
(a) above shall be provided for period from
1.01.2006 to 31.03.2010.
(d) The entire liability on account of revision of
pay scales etc. of university and college teachers
shall be taken over by the State Government opting
for revision of pay scales with effect from
1.04.2010.
(e) Financial assistance from the Central
- 49 -
Government shall be restricted to revision of pay
scales in respect of only those posts which were in
existence and had been filled up as on 1.01.2006.
(f) State Governments, taking into consideration
other local conditions, may also decide in their
discretion, to introduce scales of pay higher than
those mentioned in this Scheme, and may give
effect to the revised bands/scales of pay from a
date on or after 1.01.2006; however, in such cases,
the details of modifications proposed shall be
furnished to the Central Government and Central
assistance shall be restricted to the Pay Bands as
approved by the Central Government and not to
any higher scale of pay fixed by the State
Government(s).
(g) Payment of central assistance for implementing
this Scheme is also subject to the condition that the
entire Scheme of revision of pay scales, together
with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC
by way of Regulations and other guidelines shall
be implemented by State Governments and
universities and Colleges coming under their
jurisdiction as a composite scheme without any
modification except in regard to the date of
implementation and scales of pay mentioned
herein above."
[Italics is ours]
- 50 -
24. On a perusal of the said letter, it is evident that
the Government of India has decided, after taking into
consideration the recommendations made by the UGC to
revise the scale, to revise the pay scales of teaching
employees of the Central Universities and the Regulations are
to be framed by the UGC in this behalf in accordance with the
scheme. Clause 8(p) which deals with the applicability of the
scheme stipulates that it shall be applicable to teachers and
other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in
all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the
Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance
expenditure is met by the UGC. What has been stated therein
again is that the scheme may be extended to universities,
colleges and other higher educational institutions coming
under the purview of the State Legislatures provided the State
Government wished to adopt and implement the Scheme
subject to the terms and conditions provided therein.
Be it noted, one of the conditions relates to financial
condition.
25. The UGC, in its counter affidavit, in paragraph 8,
has stated thus:
- 51 -
"8. That subsequently, the University Grants
Commission in exercise of it's power conferred
under section 26(I)(e) & (f) read with section 14
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956,
framed the University Grants Commission
[Minimum Qualifications required for the
appointment and career advancement of teachers
in universities and institutions affiliated to it]
Regulation, 2000. It is relevant to state that the
said Regulation does not provide for the age of
superannuation.
Thereafter, a reference has been made to the letters
dated 23.03.2007 and 04.04.2007 and paragraphs 13 and 14,
being relevant, are being reproduced below:
"13. That in the circumstances it is respectfully
submitted that since the Patna University is a State
University and not funded and maintained by the
University Grants Commission, hence the age of
superannuation as notified by the MHRD vide
their letter dated 23.03.2007, is not applicable to
the teachers in the Patna University and the
colleges affiliated thereto. However, it shall be
open to the State Government to adopt the decision
or to take any other decision, as considered
appropriate in respect of the age of superannuation
of teachers in higher and purview, with the
approval of their appropriate competent authority.
- 52 -
14. That it is further submitted that so far as the
letter dated 31.12.2008 issued by the Department
of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India addressed to
the Secretary, UGC regarding the scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in
university and colleges following the revision of
pay scales of Central Government employees on
the recommendations of the sixth central pay
Commission is concerned, it is respectfully
submitted that the preliminary para of the said
letter itself contains the stipulation regard the
revision of pay scale of teachers in the Central
Universities."
Thereafter, paragraph 8(f) of the aforesaid letter dated
31.12.2008 has been reproduced which deals with the age of
superannuation for teachers in Central Educational
Institutions.
26. In paragraph 15, it has been stated thus:
"15. That in view of the above, it is submitted that
the enhancement of age of superannuation from
62-65 is for the teachers of the Central Universities
and the colleges affiliated thereto and it is open to
the State Universities and the colleges affiliated
- 53 -
thereto and the concerned State Governments to
adopt the same."
27. In the course of hearing, we have been apprised
that the UGC, as per the stand made in the counter affidavit,
issued the notification. A reference has been brought on
record to the letter dated 24.12.1998 wherein it has been
mentioned as follows:
"Kindly find enclosed a copy of the UGC
Notification, 1998, on the revision of pay scales,
minimum qualifications for the appointment of
teachers in the universities and colleges, and other
measures for the maintenance of standards. These
will be notified as Regulations shortly.
1.0 These shall apply to every University
established or incorporated by or under a Central
Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution
including a constituent or an affiliated college
recognized by the Commission, in consultation
with the concerned University under Clause (f) of
Section 2 of the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956, and every institution Deemed to be a
University under Section 3 of the said Act."
Thereafter, it has also been stated therein as follows:
- 54 -
"5. The University Grants Commission expects
that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales,
together with all the conditions attached to it,
would be implemented by the State Governments
as a composite scheme without any modifications,
except the date of implementation and the scale of
pay as indicated in Government of India
notification No.F.1-22/97-U.I dated 27.7.98,
22.9.98and 6.11.98. It shall be necessary for the Universities and the management of Colleges to make the necessary changes in their statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, etc. to incorporate the provisions of this scheme."
28. In the said notification, in clause 16.1.0, it has been stated thus:
"16.1.0 Teachers will retire at the age of 62. However, it is open to a University or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher according to the existing guidelines framed by the UGC up to the age of 65 years.
29. In another notification dated 27th July, 1998, it has been mentioned as follows:
"UGC Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, minimum Qualification for Appointments of
- 55 -
Teachers in Universities, Colleges & Other measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998."
30. The Division Bench in B.R Ambedkar University Senior Teachers Association and others (supra) had referred to the earlier letter and reproduced the stand of the UGC that it has not framed any Regulation in respect of the teachers in the State Universities and Colleges affiliated thereto. It was mentioned therein that it was upon the State Government to fix the age.
31. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel representing the case of the teachers that Section 67 of the 1976 Act categorically lays a postulate that the date of retirement of a teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grants Commission in future. Immense emphasis has been laid on the terminology used in the commencement of the provision, namely, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance" and the terms "decided by the University Grants Commission". Thus, we proceed to reproduce Section 67 of the 1976 Act as that is relevant for the present purpose. It reads as follows:
- 56 -
"67. Retirement from service.- "(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. The date of retirement of a teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grant Commission in future.
The date of retirement of non-teaching employee (other than the inferior servants) shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. Provided that the University shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains the age of sixty two years as the case may be.
Provided further also that re-appointment of teachers after retirement may be made in appropriate cases up to the age of sixty five years in the manner laid down in the statutes made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission."
(b) The University may require any teaching or non-teaching employee, who, reckoned from the
- 57 -
date of his first appointment, has completed the qualifying Service of 23 years or a total service of 27 years, to retire from the University Service, if it considers that his conduct or efficiency is such as does not justify his continuation in the service.
(c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section, any teaching or non- teaching employee may, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing to the concerned appointing authority, retire from such date on which such a teaching or non-teaching employee has completed 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice.
Provided that no employee of the University under orders of suspension shall retire except without a specific approval of the Syndicate.
(ii) The University may, in the public interest, require any teaching or non-teaching employee, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing or after paying an amount equivalent to pay and allowance of three months in lieu of such notice, to retire from such date on which he completes 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age, or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice.
- 58 -
(d) The provisions contained in the preceding sub-sections shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teaching and non-teaching employees of affiliated Colleges."
32. Be it noted, similar provision exists in Section 64 of the Patna University Act.
33. The submission of the learned counsel for the University is that the UGC has not taken any decision by framing a Regulation or issuing a Notification about the age of the teachers of other universities. What has been done by the letter is that the MHRD had accepted the recommendations of the teachers subject to framing of Regulations by centrally funded educational institutions and the universities affiliated thereto subject to the amendment of the respective statutes. If the said clause is carefully read, it is perceptible that it mentioned the age of superannuation for teachers of Centrally funded Educational Institutions which has already been enhanced to 65 years by the letter dated 23.03.2007 but they are involved in class-room teaching. The letter in question pertains to the Vice Chancellors of the Central Universities and also negatively stipulates that the
- 59 -
enhancement of age shall not be available to the categories of Librarians and Directors of Physical Education. The purpose of stating so is that the whole thing has been based on the letter dated 23.03.2007 barring certain other groups. If we go through the letter in a harmonious manner, it would only convey that it was the letter written by the MHRD to the UGC. Thus, the UGC has not taken any decision. The situation is as has been understood by the Division Bench of this Court in B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University Senior Teachers Association (supra).
34. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Legislature has intended that the date of retirement of the teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the UGC in future and the Legislature had left it to the Government to implement the same the moment the UGC decides it.
35. It is urged by them that if Section 67 of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act are properly read, it would be quite clear that the legislature has really deliberately expressed the intention that the age of superannuation would automatically stand extended once the
- 60 -
UGC takes a decision. It is urged that this is not application of the legislative power in entirety but a conditional legislation which covers to determine a contingency or event upon the happening of which the legislative provisions are made to operate. They have invited our attention to paragraph 236 in Re Art. 143, Constitution of India and Delhi Laws Act (1912) etc., AIR 1951 SC 332 which is as follows:
"236. Broadly speaking, the question of delegated legislation has come up for consideration before courts of law in two distinct classes of cases. One of these classes comprises what is known as cases of "conditional legislation," where according to the generally accepted view, the element of delegation that is present relates not to any legislative function at all, but to the determination of a contingency or event, upon the happening of which the legislative provisions are made to operate. The other class comprises cases of delegation proper, where admittedly some portion of the legislative power has been conferred by the legislative body upon what is described as a subordinate agent or authority. I will take up for consideration these two types of cases one after the other."
36. They have also drawn inspiration from paragraph
- 61 -
29 of the decision in Hamdard Dawakhana and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1960 SC 554. It has been stated that the legislature has laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation and has left the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. It is submitted by them that the Legislature did not want to amend the provisions for fixing the age of superannuation and has left it to be a condition precedent to happen. Paragraph 29 of the aforesaid decision, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced as follows:
"29. The third point raised by Mr. Munshi was that the words 'or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act' in cl.(d) of s. 3 of the Act are delegated legislation and do not lay down any certain criteria or proper standards, and surrender unguided and uncanalised power to the executive to add to diseases in the schedule. The learned Solicitor- General in reply supported the schedule as a case of conditional legislation and not the exercise of delegated legislative power and he further contended that even if it was held to be the latter it was within the limits recognised by judicial decisions. The distinction between conditional legislation and delegated legislation is this that in
- 62 -
the former the delegate's power is that of determining when a legislative declared rule of conduct shall become effective; Hampton & Co. v. United States, (1927) 276 US 394, and the latter involves delegation of rule making power which constitutionally may be exercised by the administrative agent. This means that the legislature having laid down the broad principles of its policy in the legislation can then leave the details to be supplied by the administrative authority. In other words by delegated legislation the delegate completes the legislation by supplying details within the limits prescribed by the statute and in the case of conditional legislation the power of legislation is exercised by the legislature conditionally leaving to the discretion of an external authority the time and manner of carrying its legislation into effect as also the determination of the area to which it is to extend; The Queen v. Burah (1878) 3 AC 889; Charles Russell v. The Queen, (1882) 7 AC 829 at p. 835; Emperor v. Benoarilal Sarma, 72 Ind App 57; (AIR 1945 PC 48); Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1957) SCR 605 : ((S) AIR 1957 Supreme Court 510). Thus when the delegate is given the power of making rules and regulations in order to fill in the details to carry out and subserve the purposes of the legislation the manner in which the requirements of the statute
- 63 -
are to be met and the rights therein created to be enjoyed it is an exercise of delegated legislation. But when the legislation is complete in itself and the legislature has itself made the law and the only function left to the delegate is to apply the law to an area or to determine the time and manner of carrying it into effect, it is conditional legislation. To put it in the language of another American case:
"To assert that a law is less than a law because it is made to depend upon a future event or act is to rob the legislature of the power to act wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or the things future and impossible to fully know."
The proper distinction there pointed out was this:
"The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law making power, and must therefore be subject of enquiry and determination outside the hall of legislatures". (In Locke's Appeal 72 Pa. 491 ; Field & Co. v. Clark, (1892)
- 64 -
143 US 649).
But the discretion should not be so wide that it is impossible to discern its limits. There must instead be definite boundaries within which the powers of the administrative authority are exercisable. Delegation should not be so indefinite as to amount to an abdication of the legislative function. Schwartz - American Administrative Law, page 21."
37. A reference has also been made to the decision in Ramesh Birch & Ors. v. Union of India & ors., AIR 1990 SC 560, wherein after referring to a catena of decisions, their Lordships have held thus:
"13. ....... Suffice it to say that these decisions have been interpreted as holding that the power of parliament to entrust legislative powers to some other body or authority is not unbridled and absolute. It must lay down essential legislative policy and indicate the guidelines to be kept in view by that authority in exercising the delegated powers."
38. Relying on the same, it is urged that the legislature had not abdicated its power but has left the determination to be done on the after thing to happen.
- 65 -
39. Inspiration is drawn from Lalit Mohan Pandey v. Pooran Singh & ors., (2004) 6 SCC 626 wherein their Lordships have held thus:
"60. A statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. It has to be meaningful. A construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would fulfill the object and purport of the legislative intent."
40. Relying on the said decision, it is urged that when the legislation wanted, a meaning has to be given to it to fulfill the object and purport of the legislative intent. To elaborate, it is canvassed by them that unless the UGC has really taken a decision, the State Government is bound by it because of the legislative intendment under the provisions contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act.
41. At this juncture, we may state with profit that in the course of hearing, on a query being made from Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC, whether the UGC has taken any categorical decision wherefrom it could be conveyed that the age of
- 66 -
superannuation of the University teachers other than those of the centrally funded educational institutions should be 62 years, the learned counsel categorically answered in the negative. The same is in accord and consonance with the counter affidavit and the letters that have been brought on record. The learned single Judge has referred to the letter dated 31.12.2008 as well as the letter dated 28.02.2009 whereby the UGC has addressed to all the Education Secretaries of all State Governments recommending that the State Government may take action to adopt the Government of India's scheme for State Universities and Colleges, payment of pay scales, enhancement of retirement age and release of 40% of the arrears during the current financial year in accordance with those provisions. If we understand those two letters which we have referred to in our order earlier, they having insegregable nexus with each other containing a reference to the framing of Regulations, the stand of the UGC is also that the Regulation is to be framed regarding the age of retirement of University and College teachers. The learned single Judge has adverted to the factum of shortage of teachers, the standard of education and the recommendations
- 67 -
of the UGC, the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the provisions contained in Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act to arrive at the conclusion that the decision had been taken by the UGC. The learned single Judge is also guided by the fact that there is the recommendation of the UGC, as usually done, and also the provision under the Universities Act that in case of any recommendation by the UGC in future, if the age of retirement is recommended by the UGC, the State Government has no other option but to implement it. On the said base, the learned single Judge has opined that there has been conscious decision of the UGC and the statutory provision under the Universities Act would be deemed to be implemented with effect from 31.12.2008.
42. In our considered opinion, the learned single Judge has fallen into error by holding that the decision has been taken by the UGC. The UGC, as we understand, has not taken any decision. It has neither framed any Regulation nor issued any notification as it had done so in the year 1998. The decision has to be understood regard being had to the text and context of the UGC Act, 1956. In the year 1998, the UGC had issued a notification which was nomenclatured as "UGC
- 68 -
Notification on Revision of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification for Appointments of Teachers in Universities, Colleges & Other measures for the Maintenance of Standards, 1998" wherein there was a reference to superannuation and re-employment of teachers. A reference was also made therein that the same would be notified as Regulations. Thus, it is clear as crystal that the UGC has been issuing notifications which are crystalised by Regulations. In the case at hand, nothing of that sort has occurred. The UGC has also made it clear that there is no guideline, no notification or Regulation which relates to the age of superannuation of the university teachers other than those of the centrally funded educational institutions and, thus, to read something else into the same would not be appropriate. The legislative intent behind Section 67(a) of the 1976 Act and Section 64 of the Patna University Act was that whenever a decision is taken, that is to say, when a Regulation is framed or a notification is issued, the same should be given effect to without further amendment, but in the absence of a decision which would mean a decision in law having the colour, character and contour of a decision, a communication of this nature neither
- 69 -
can be regarded as a decision nor can it be treated as a deemed fiction, as has been understood by the learned single Judge.
43. Consequently, we allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court.
The 18th May,2010.
A.F.R. Dilip/Pawan.