Patna High Court
The State Governent Through The ... vs Parwati Kumari & Ors on 8 January, 2016
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.430 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13136 of 2001
=========================================
1. The State Government of Bihar through the Secretary
Department of Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.
2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Joint Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
.... Respondent nos.1, 2 and 6 .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Parvati Kumari, W/o Ramakant Singh, F/119, Kankerbagh
Colony, Patna, at Present Principal, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Women's College, Sheikhpura.
2. Madhu Kumari, W/o Ramashanker Prasad Singh of Village
Kaithwan, P.S-Sherari, District-Sheikhpura, President Teachers
and Non Teaching Employees Association, Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Women's College, Sheikhpura.
3. Arun Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri Deonandan Prasad of Village-
Pachna, P.S and District-Sheikhpura, at present Secretary,
Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Association, Sanjay
Gandhi Memorial Women's College, Sheikhpura.
.... Petitioners .... Respondents 1st Set
4. Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
5. Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
.... Respondent Nos.3 and 4 .... Respondents 2nd Set
6. Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
.... Respondent No.5 .... Respondent 3rd Set
With
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016
2/44
=========================================
Letters Patent Appeal No.474 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10437 of 2002
=========================================
1. The State of Bihar Government through the Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.
2. Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Higher Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Parvati Kumari, Wife of Late Ramakant Singh, F/119,
Kankerbagh Colony, P.S. Kankerbagh, District-Patna, at Present
Principal, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Women's College, Sheikhpura.
2. Madhu Kumari, Wife of Ramashanker Prasad Singh of Village-
Kaithwa, P.S.-Shirara, District-Sheikhpura, at present President,
Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Association of Sanjay
Gandhi Memorial Women's College, Sheikhpura.
3. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Deonandan Prasad, Resident of
Village-Pachna, P.S. and District-Sheikhpura, at present
Secretary, Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Association,
Sanjay Gandhi Women's Memorial College, Sheikhpura.
.... Petitioners .... Respondents 1st Set
4. Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
.... Respondent No.2 .... Respondent 2nd Set
5. Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
6. Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
.... Respondent Nos.5 and 6 .... Respondents 3rd Set
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016
3/44
7. Secretary, Governing Body of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Women's College, Sheikhpura.
.... Respondent No.7 .... Respondent 4th Set
With
=========================================
Letters Patent Appeal No.312 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7237 of 1999
=========================================
1. The State Government through the Secretary Department of
Higher Education, Bihar, Patna.
2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar,
Patna.
.... Respondent Nos.1 and 2 .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Parwati Kumari, Wife of Ramakant Singh, F/119, Kankerbagh
Colony, Patna, at Present Principal, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Women's College, Sheikhpura.
2. Madhu Kumari, Wife of Ramashanker Prasad Singh of Village-
Kaithwan, P.S.-Sirari, District-Sheikhpura, President, Teachers
and Non-Teaching Employees Association, Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Women's College, Sheikhpura.
3. Arun Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Deonandan Prasad, Resident of
Village-Pachna, P.S. and District-Sheikhpura, at present
Secretary, Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Association,
Gandhi Women's Memorial College, Sheikhpura.
.... Petitioners .... Respondents 1st Set
4. Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
5. Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
.... Respondent Nos.3 and 4 .... Respondents 2nd Set
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016
4/44
6. Secretary, Governing Body of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial
Women's College, Sheikhpura.
.... Respondent No.5.... Respondent 3rd Set
=========================================
Appearance :
(In all the three appeals)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG 10
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, AC to AAG 10
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anjani Prasad Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chakrapani, Adv.
=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH)
Date : 08-01-2016
This batch of appeals, under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent of this Court, have been preferred by the
State, aggrieved by a common judgment and order, dated
25.07.2013, passed by a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999 (Parvati Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and other analogous cases. Since all these appeals are based on same set of facts and common questions of law are Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 5/44 involved, the appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties, and are being disposed of by the present common judgment.
2. The private respondents, in all these appeals, are same persons, who had preferred three writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999, C.W.J.C. No.13136 of 2001 and C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002. Petitioner No.1, namely, Parvati Kumari, claimed herself to be the Principal of Sanjay Memorial Women's College, Seikhpura (hereinafter referred to as "the College"), whereas petitioners Nos.2 and 3, namely, Madhu Kumari and Arun Kumar Sinha, as President and Secretary, respectively, of the Teachers and Non-Teaching Employees Association of the said College, which was/is, admittedly, a private College, which is managed and maintained by a Governing Body/Ad-hoc Committee.
3. [a.] By C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999, the petitioners had sought for a direction that "deficit grant"
status, with allied aids and grants benefits, be accorded to the College and pay scale of teaching and non-teaching employees of the College be ordered to be made at par with those of the constituent Colleges and necessary fund be made available to meet the expenditure incurred on that count.
Alternatively, in case the State Government had any difficulty Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 6/44 in according deficit grant status, they sought for a direction to the State Government to convert the College into a constituent unit and the Bhagalpur University may, thus, take over the management of the College with its all assets and liabilities. By way of amendment, the petitioners sought to challenge an order, dated 09.11.2001, issued by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, whereby it was decided to stop payment of deficit grant to the College.
[b.] The same set of persons filed another writ application, in the year 2001, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No.13136 of 2001, seeking direction to enforce a decision of this Court delivered on 09.07.1999 in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1998 (Governing Body of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). They also sought for quashing of Government Order No.08, dated
04.03.1997/24.05.1997, with a direction to the State Government to restore payment of grant of Rs.10 lacs earlier sanctioned to the Governing Body of the said College, vide Government Order Nos.1459, dated 17.10.1986, and 192, dated 12.02.1988. They sought for enforcement of the spirit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Governing Body of Sidartha Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Seikhpura (supra), by releasing aforesaid grant, with retrospective Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 7/44 effect, by treating the said orders, dated 04.03.1997/24.05.1997, as non est. [c.] They filed third writ petition, on 16.09.2002, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002, seeking quashing of the order of the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, dated 09.11.2001, whereby it was decided to stop payment of deficit grant to the College from the financial year 1997-1998. It needs to be noted here that by way of amendment in C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999 (supra), the petitioners had already been allowed to challenge the order, dated 09.11.2001, by way of amendment, by this Court. It is not clear as to when the petitioners were allowed, by way of amendment, to challenge the said order, dated 09.11.2001, in C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999, and what was the occasion for them to have filed a third writ application to challenge the same order.
4. It was the case of the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to respondents 1st set) in the aforesaid proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that the College was established in June, 1980, by local people, when there was no Women's College in rural areas of even the adjoining districts. The erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Education Council had granted affiliation to the College for imparting education up-to Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 8/44 Intermediate level. The College had sufficient infrastructure facilities including a three storied building, having 16 rooms in an area of approximately 15,000/- square feet, two double storied buildings consisting of 15 rooms and Indoor Stadium with well equipped laboratory and other sanitary facilities. Bhagalpur University (now, Tilaka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, hereinafter referred to as "the University") is said to have, later on, granted temporary affiliation for imparting education, in various subjects, up to graduation level for the Sessions 1982-1983 and 1983-1984. The College was managed and maintained by a private Governing Body. There were a number of students enrolled and, thus, the College fulfilled the requisite criteria for allowing deficit grant status and conversion of the College into a constituent unit of the University.
5. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring to the Annexures, as brought on record by the writ petitioners (respondents 1st Set in the present appeals) in C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002. They relied upon a resolution of the Education Department of the State Government, issued vide memo No.1065, dated 09.12.1982 (Annexure-1 to C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002), in support of their case, which refers to the decision of the State Government in relation to affiliation, grants in aid and creation of posts in the Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 9/44 constituent Colleges in the light of establishment of Bihar Intermediate Education Council under Bihar Intermediate Education Council Ordinance, 1980.
6. From the reading of the said resolution, dated 09.12.1982, it would be evident that Bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Council") was established in order to bring uniformity in education at Intermediate level in the State of Bihar and for the purpose of separating Intermediate education from the Universities in the State. It is a matter of common knowledge and admitted fact that prior to establishment of the Council, the Intermediate examinations were held by the Universities established under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. It was in the light of this policy of separating Intermediate education from the Universities that the said resolution, in relation to grant of affiliation etc., was issued. The said resolution provided, inter alia, that affiliation for Intermediate standard would be granted only by the Intermediate Council and not by the State Government. It further provided that extension of affiliation for Intermediate standard would also be granted by the Council. As regards Colleges, which were constituent units of various Universities, it was provided that new posts shall be created only after prior approval of the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar.
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 10/44 With respect to the affiliated Colleges, it was categorically mentioned in the said resolution, dated, 09.12.1982, that the State Government shall not bear any expenses arising out of affiliation of new faculty of a College with the Council and creation of new posts for teaching and non-teaching employees. It further provided that such additional expenses shall be borne by the concerned Colleges only. Clause-IV of the said resolution contained that the State Government shall continue to bear such expenses, which it had been bearing, on the basis of the earlier decisions. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that College was given any grant of any nature prior to issuance of the said resolution, dated 09.12.1982.
7. The writ petitioners also brought on record, in the writ proceedings, a letter, issued vide memo No.1459, dated 17.10.1986, whereby the State Government had, in special circumstances, decided to sanction grant of Rs.5 lacs per year to the Governing Body of the College. Though the College was having temporary affiliation with the Bhagalpur University without any financial liabilities, the State Government, in the special circumstances, decided to sanction the grant, as mentioned hereinbefore, in favour of the College, making it clear, while making the grant of Rs.5,00,000/- per year, that this would not be treated as a Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 11/44 precedent for other affiliated Colleges. There is no mention, in the said communication, as to what were the distinguishing features, which made the State Government sanction the grant on annual basis to the College and denying such benefits to other affiliated Colleges. There is also no mention in the said letter as regards the policy, whereunder the decision to sanction the said grant-in-aid was taken. On perusal of Annexure 4, we find that no basis except "Nirdeshanusar" (as directed), has been mentioned as the basis for sanctioning the grant. It further transpires, as claimed by the writ petitioners, that the Chief Minister of Bihar visited the College on 09.01.1988. A file note has been brought on record, by way of Annexure 5 to C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002, to show that the Chief Minister desired that the College should be sanctioned additional grant of Rs.5 lacs per year in addition to what the College had been earlier receiving in terms of the said letter No.1459, dated 17.10.1986. The Education Department, Government of Bihar, accordingly, communicated to the Vice-Chancellor, Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through letter, dated 12.02.1988 (Annexure-6), the decision of the State Government to sanction a grant of Rs.10 lacs in favour of the College. Needless to say that these decisions were apparently contrary to the resolution, dated 09.12.1982 Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 12/44 (Annexure 2), which was based on a decision taken by the Cabinet on 19.10.1982. There is no reference, either in the letter, dated 17.10.1986 or 12.02.1988, sanctioning grant, in favour of the College, of the earlier decision taken in a Cabinet meeting of the State Government on 19.10.1982.
8. The Higher Education Department of the State Government of Bihar, thereafter, came out with a communication, dated 04.03.1997, addressed to the Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, that sanction of grant, in favour of the College, in question, and other 2 (two) Colleges, under the University, through letter, dated 12.02.1988, was in violation of the decision of the Cabinet Ministers of the State Government taken on 19.10.1982. It was, therefore, through the said letter, dated 07.03.1997, communicated that the State Government had decided to cancel the Government's order, dated 12.02.1988. The said letter, dated, 07.03.1997, had referred to sanction of grant of Rs.5 lacs to the College, in question, through letter, dated 12.02.1988.
9. As has been noted above, as a matter of fact, a total amount of Rs.10 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the College in question. Accordingly, through the letter, dated 24.05.1997, aforementioned, the State Government decided to cancel the letter through which the College was Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 13/44 sanctioned Rs.10 lacs as annual recurring grant.
10. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Government, as contained in the orders, dated 04.03.1997 and 24.05.1997, the Governing Body of the College had filed a writ application before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, numbered as C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997. The said writ application was allowed by an order, dated 09.07.1998, passed by the Court mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Governing Body of the College was not given any opportunity of being heard prior to the said decision cancelling earlier decisions to sanction grant in favour of Governing Body of the College. While setting aside the said decisions, as contained in letters, on 04.03.1997 and 24.05.1997, this Court gave the authorities an option to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
11. This is not in dispute that in the judgment of this Court, dated 09.07.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997, the Governing Body of the College and the petitioners were heard and, thereafter, the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, passed the order, dated 09.11.2001 (Annexure-12 to C.W.J.C. No.10437 of 2002). On perusal of the said order, dated 09.11.2001, we find that the Department of Higher Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 14/44 Education arrived at the conclusion that the College was allowed Recurring Annual Grant in breach of the State Government's policy decision and assigned reasons as to why such grant could not be allowed to the College.
12. Before we proceed to consider the validity of the order under appeal, we take note of the fact that the order impugned, dated 09.11.2001, was passed by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, in compliance of this Court's order, dated 09.07.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997, which was preferred by the Governing Body of the College. The private respondents 1st set claimed to be working in the College, apparently, on the basis of their appointment by the Governing Body of the College.
13. Interestingly enough, the order, dated 09.11.2001, by which the Government had decided not to extend financial benefit to the College, was not questioned by the Governing Body of the College before any forum/authority.
14. In the background of the facts as mentioned above, the writ petitioners approached this Court, seeking reliefs, as have been mentioned at the very outset, which included quashing of the said order, dated 09.11.2001, made by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 15/44 Government of Bihar, in compliance of this Court's order, dated 09.07.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997. The learned single Judge, upon considering the claim of the writ petitioners, passed the common judgment, under appeal, in all the three writ applications, referred to above, operative portion (paragraphs 42 to 44) of which reads thus:-
"42. Thus, on consideration of all the facts noted above, I have no option but to hold that cancelling the recurring grant, depriving the petitioners' institution of the status of full deficit grant/constituent status cannot be justified. The State's action, as noted above, has never been consistent with its professed policy. Policy, as shown above, has been obeyed more in breach. No valid distinction for hostile discrimination brought on record by the State.
43. Thus, on the facts above, it would not be out of place to direct that if so may other colleges, who are similarly or worse situated than the petitioners, have been granted the benefit of deficit grant/constituent then petitioners' college deserves the same treatment from the State otherwise actions of the State would be grossly arbitrary and would be highly discriminatory without any lawful reason or rational.
44. The writ petitions, are Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 16/44 accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of the Secretary, Department of Education justifying the stoppage of recurring grant is set aside. The recurring grant has to be restored forthwith and continued till a decision is taken by the State with regard to deficit grant status or constituent status to the college which decision must be taken within a period of six months from today."
15. A plea was also taken on behalf of the appellants, who were respondents in the writ proceedings, that the sanction of recurring grant or declaring the College deficit grant or making the College constituent unit of the University was in breach of the policy of the State Government and such a decision was taken at the behest of the then Chief Minister. Learned single Judge, however, rejected the plea with the following reasoning (paragraph 39 of the judgment, under appeal):-
"39. ................... Firstly, I have already noted above that it is not the wild prerogative of the Executive to do what they like. There is nothing known as unguided, untrammeled discretion. We are not living in a feudalistic State. We are a sovereign democratic republic. If State decides to aid a deserving institution then it cannot deny aid to Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 17/44 other similarly situated institution.
When it decides to take over large number of colleges as constituent colleges, it cannot shut out certain colleges for no disclosed valid reason. ............"
16. Learned single Judge also recorded that when the State Government decided to extend deficit grant status to certain Colleges as recently in 2010, it covertly refers to "as per order of the Court", when, in fact, there is no such positive order of the Court. Learned single Judge also noticed, while allowing the writ applications, that the College, in question, was wrongly denied an opportunity of being considered for conversion into a constituent unit of the University despite there being recommendations by the Chancellor, the Chief Minister and the Education Minister of the State. Learned single Judge has given instances where the Colleges, though granted affiliation after coming into force of Non-Aided Education Policy, 1982, have been given deficit aid status.
17. Learned single Judge, while recording the judgment, under appeal, held that right to receive aid or right to make a constituent unit or right to be granted deficit grant status is neither statutory nor prima facie right, defined and controlled by statutory parameters, and these are the Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 18/44 discretion of the State. The learned single Judge has also held that the exercise of discretion cannot be arbitrary but must be exercised in a reasonable manner. The learned single Judge referred to Supreme Court decision, in case of L Hirday Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly (AIR 1971 SC
33), that exercise of discretionary power cannot be discriminatory. Learned single Judge has also referred to the decisions in Suman Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of J & K and Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 1235), and S G Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1967 SC 1427) for coming to the conclusion that exercise of discretion cannot be arbitrary and beyond the bounds of reason.
18. Dealing with a plea raised on behalf of the State Government that if at all, the Governing Body of the College had any grievance against discrimination in the matter of conversion of affiliated Colleges into constituent units under relevant policy of the State Government, they ought to have approached this Court at appropriate time, when other Colleges were being made constituent. Learned single Judge has observed, in this regard, that there were recommendations by the Chancellor of the University, Vice-
Chancellor, Chief Minister and the Education Minister in favour of the College; but the Secretariat refused to take note of these recommendations. Learned single Judge noted that the Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 19/44 College had been receiving substantial amount, as grant-in- aid, but the same time was abruptly stopped, which brought the petitioners to this Court. The learned single Judge noticed that several institutions were granted deficit grant status as late as in the year 2010; but the case of the petitioners was being wrongly resisted on the ground of "Non- Aid Education Policy". The plea, taken on behalf of the State Government, that only minority institutions had been granted deficit grant status, learned single Judge observed that there could be no discrimination on such ground inasmuch as it would be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has referred to Supreme Court's decision, in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 152), and a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court, in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (AIR 1954 Bombay 23), to hold that a public authority cannot be denied a right of the person on the ground that the said public authority failed to consider his case at the opportune movement and by the time his matter was to be considered, such right vanished with lapse of time.
19. This fact is not in dispute that the College, Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 20/44 in question, was granted permanent affiliation by the University for imparting education up-to graduation level on 23.12.1988.
20. Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the appellants-State of Bihar has, at the outset, drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 2 (c) of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which defines affiliated College, and Section 4(1)(14) of the said Act, which confers power on a University, reads thus:
"Affiliated College" means educational institution having received privileges of the University according to the provision of this Act and University Statutes relating thereto."
Section 4(1) (14) of the 1976 Act makes the following provision:
"S.4: Purpose and Powers of the University:- (1) There shall be the following purposes and powers of the University:-
X X X X X X X (14) to enter into agreement with other bodies and persons for promoting the purposes of this Act and to assume the management of any institution under them and to take over its assets and liabilities.
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 21/44 Provided that before entering into such an agreement the University shall obtain the sanction of the State Government, or shall do so upon receiving such a proposal from the State Government.
Provided further that if at any time any irregularity is found in determination and payment of any pay, special pay or allowances, or in any appointment in an institution taken over by the University in its management under an agreement, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the University shall have the powers to take decisions after reviewing it and such a decision shall be final and binding."
(Emphasis added)
21. Mr. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General No.10, has submitted that it is true that by way of policy decisions, the State of Bihar has sanctioned conversion of several Colleges, affiliated to various Universities, into constituent units of such Universities, in terms of Section 4(1)(14) of the Act, from time to time, in a phased manner.
According to him, the State Government had taken a policy decision, vide its Resolution No.1065, dated 19.12.1982, popularly known as "Vitta Rahit Siksha Niti", whereunder it Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 22/44 was decided that the State Government shall not bear any financial burden to be incurred, owing to affiliation of any College or new faculty/in College resulting into creation of new posts of Teacher and non-teaching employee of any affiliated College. The concerned affiliated Colleges were required to bear additional financial burden from their own resources. It was also the policy of the State Government, however, that a College affiliated before coming into force of the said "Vitta Rahit Siksha Niti", where the posts were duly created in accordance with the Act, might be converted into constituent units of the University or might be granted deficit-
in-aid. He submits that the Colleges, which were affiliated prior to 09.12.1982 and running in rural areas, were taken over by the State Government in phased manner and converted into constituent units of respective Universities and such Colleges, which did not come under this category, were allowed deficit-in-aid. Copies of the memo No.1065, dated 09.12.1982, and letter, relating to conversion of Colleges into constituent units, in fourth phase, are available on record as Annexures A, B and C to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No.7237 of 1999. Mr. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that because of the State Government's policy, dated 09.12.1982, the College, in Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 23/44 question, was neither given deficit grant status nor was converted into a constituent unit of the concerned University inasmuch as permanent affiliation for graduation course, was granted, on 23.12.1988, to the College much after 09.12.1982.
22. Mr. Shahi has further submitted that the State Government has, now, introduced a new education policy through Government Resolution No.1846, dated
21.11.2008, wherein the old concept of unaided education has been abolished. As per the said policy, institutions, affiliated to different Universities, not having adequate resources to run the institution, despite having prescribed area of land and building, have been made entitled to financial aid.
23. Referring to the College in question, it has been submitted by Mr. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General No.10, that for the financial year 2009-10, it was given financial aid of Rs. 9,05,100/-. He has submitted that College, in question, was granted permanent affiliation, vide memo No.1573, dated 23.12.1988, with clear stipulation that the State Government would not bear financial burden of the said College, because of its affiliation in tune with the "Vitta Rahit Siksha Niti" of the State Government.
24. Mr. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 24/44 General, has submitted that there is no policy of the State Government to convert an affiliated College into a constituent unit and, therefore, the direction issued by learned single Judge by the order, under appeal, asking the State Government to take a decision to accord deficit grant status or constituent status to the College is contrary to the policy of the State Government. He has also submitted that the petitioners, who are employees of a private College, did not have locus standi to maintain the writ applications inasmuch as the Governing Body, which manages and runs the College, did not raise any objection after the Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar, passed the order dated, 09.11.2001, in compliance of this Court's order nor did it raise any grievance, at any stage, against any other College, being converted into a constituent units, alleging discrimination.
25. Mr. Shahi has lastly submitted that despite the fact that the petitioners failed to make out any legal or constitutional right to sustain the reliefs sought for in the writ applications, learned Single Judge allowed the writ applications on the ground that the State Government itself breached its own policy of "Vitta Rahit Siksha Niti" inasmuch as few Colleges, established in the year 1980 and received affiliation in the year 1984-85, were given such aid/grant. In Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 25/44 the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to how such other Colleges were granted deficit aided status, learned single Judge held that the cancellation of recurring grant, in the present case, depriving the College of its status of full deficit grant/constituent status, could not be justified. Mr. Shahi has contended that even it is presumed that there has been any breach of the policy of the State Government, there could not have been any directive in exercise of power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to act in breach of the State Government's policy.
26. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, while defending the order, under appeal, has submitted that in the matter of considering educational institutions for allowing deficit grant or for converting an institution, affiliated to a University, into a constituent unit, the approach of the State must be fair, reasonable and without any discrimination. He has submitted that the College, in question, has been discriminated against, by the respondents, in the matter of grant of aid/conversion into a constituent unit inasmuch as the institutions, having inferior infrastructure with less number of students and Teachers, have been given the benefit of grant-in-aid and have been converted into constituent units. He has submitted that in Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 26/44 order to undo injustice meted out to the College in question, by the State of Bihar, which was manifestly in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, learned single Judge, by the judgment, under appeal, rightly issued the direction to the State Government to consider grant of deficit aid to the College and convert it into a constituent unit. In support of his submission that the question of locus standi of the respondents 1st set cannot be raised since they were allowed to pursue the matter in representative capacity, Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned Senior counsel, has taken us through various orders passed by this Court in the proceedings, out of which the present batch of appeals have arisen, particular reference, in this regard, has been made to this Court's order, dated 11.05.2010, wherein, while allowing an interlocutory application, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court passed the following order:-
"Learned senior counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since the case involves adjudication with regard to policy decisions of the Government and their implementation which may affect the interest of large number of other institutions of the State, it would be appropriate that the petitioners be allowed to get a notice published in terms of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of Order Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 27/44 I of the C.P.C."
27. Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel, has given several instances, as mentioned in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1st set in the writ proceedings, that various Colleges, which were granted affiliation subsequent to 20.12.1982, have been made constituent units.
28. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1st set, has submitted that despite several opportunities granted to the appellants, they failed to file an affidavit to meet the answer as to why the Colleges, which were affiliated subsequent to 04.12.1982, were given the status of constituent Colleges in breach of the so called "Vitta Rahit Siksha Niti" of the State Government.
29. On the basis of the pleadings on record and the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, following questions have emerged to be answered in the present case:-
[I] In the absence of any such plea being raised by the Governing Body of the College, whether the respondents 1st set, who were mere employees of the College, in question, appointed by its Governing Body, had any legal right to seek a direction from this Court in exercise of power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asking the State Government to grant the College deficit aided status or convert the College into a constituent unit?
Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 28/44 [II] When the Governing Body of the College, having accepted the decision of the State Government, dated 09.11.2001, taken in the light of this Court's order, dated 09.07.1998, whether it was open to the employees, under the Governing Body, to question the said decision? This question needs to be answered with reference to the relationship of the respondents 1st set vis-à-vis the Governing Body of the College. This is also to be kept in mind that the Governing Body of the College, despite being impleaded as a respondent in writ proceedings, did not file its response.
[III] Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued asking the State to act in breach of its policy decision even if it is presumed that the State, in some cases, acted in breach of its own policy, if the policy itself has not been held to be bad or untenable in law.
30. So far as question Nos.I and II, as referred to above, are concerned, they have been answered in Supreme Court's decision, in the case of State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar Sharma (AIR 1965 SC 1196), which has been subsequently relied by the Supreme Court in its another decision in the case of Cyril E. Fernandes v. Sr. Myria Lydia & Ors. (AIR 1977 SC 2145). In Ajit Kumar Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court held that withholding of grant-in-aid to a private College by the Government is a matter between the concerned Government and the management of the private College. The Supreme Court held Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 29/44 that the conditions or instructions as to grant-in-aid confer no right on the teachers of the private Colleges and they cannot ask that either particular instructions or conditions should be enforced or should not be enforced.
31. Relying upon its decision in Ajit Kumar Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court, in Cyril E. Fernandes (supra), held that the appellant of that case, being teacher of a private institution, was not directly concerned with the question whether the rules in grant-in-aid code conferred on the management of the institution an enforceable right against the Government, which is entirely a matter between the management and the Government.
32. Following the aforesaid decisions in Cyril E. Fernandes (supra) and Ajit Kumar Sharma (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that in the matter of the said policy or State action, touching release or withholding of grant to a private institution, cannot be said to be conferring any enforceable right on the employees of the institution or taking away any right from the employees of the institution, since they cannot be said to be directly concerned with the dispute between the private institution and the Government, particularly, when the institution does not question the decision of the Government to withhold such grant. We are of the clear view that the private respondents, herein, had no Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 30/44 locus standi to question the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, dated 09.11.2001, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 16.09.2002, as the said dispute was raised by the Governing Body of the College against the decision of the State Government of stopping Recurring Annual Grant to the College and the dispute, as regards grant-in-aid, was between the Governing Body of the private College and the State Government. The Governing Body elected not to question the decision of the said State Government and, thus, accepted it.
33. Further, the right of the private respondents/writ petitioners, if any, is determinable on the basis of contract of employment between them and the management of the private institutions inter se. Question of denial of their right will depend upon the nature of agreement between them and their employer. The writ petitioners- private respondents could not have, in our considered opinion, raised any grievance and/or seek release of grant-in- aid in favour of the College inasmuch as there was no legal right vested in them, which can be said to have been violated.
34. The law is well settled that a mandamus cannot be issued to create a right; but mandamus is to be issued to restore a party, who has been denied right, to enjoyment of such right. A person can be said to be to be Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 31/44 aggrieved only if his legal rights are directly affected. In our opinion, thus, the private respondents/writ petitioners had no locus standi to maintain writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, rejecting the plea of the Governing Body to continue with the release of recurring annual grant-in-aid to the College.
35. There is a peculiar fact, which we have noted in the present proceeding. As has been noticed above, the Governing Body of the College did not question the decision of the State Government, dated 09.11.2001, passed by the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, rejecting the claim of the Governing Body to continue with release of annual recurring grant-in-aid. The private respondents/writ petitioners, in their writ applications, while challenging the said order, dated 09.11.2001, impleaded the Governing Body of the College as private respondents. The Governing Body did not file any response, in the said proceedings, disclosing its stand as to whether it was in need of any aid from the State Government, which was wrongly denied, or whether the institution was discriminated against by the State Government/University in the matter of conferment of constituent status to the institution. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the Governing Body/management Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 32/44 of the College ever made any request to the State Government or the University for converting the College into a constituent unit.
36. As has been noticed above, the Governing Body of the said private College did not question the decision of the State Government, as contained in the order, dated 09.11.2001, which was passed in the light of this Court's judgment/order, dated 09.07.1998, in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997. At the cost of re-petition, it is to be pointed out that the said writ application, i.e., C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997, was filed by the Governing Body of the College against the decision of the State Government, as contained in the orders, respectively, dated 04.03.1997 and 24.05.1997, whereby the State Government had decided to cancel the earlier decision of sanctioning recurring annual grant of Rs.10 lacs to the College. Logically, the Governing Body accepted the decision of the State Government, as contained in the order, dated 09.11.2001.
37. It appears that more than 13 years after passing of the said order, dated 09.11.2001, the Ad-hoc Committee of the College filed a writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before this Court, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015, which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge, vide judgment, dated 04.02.2015. The Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 33/44 said judgment, dated 04.02.2015, passed by the learned single Judge has been assailed by the said Ad-hoc Committee of Sanjay Gandhi Smarak Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Sheikhpura, by filing an appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, giving rise to L.P.A. No.533 of 2015. The said appeal has also been heard alongwith the present three appeals, which has been disposed of by a separate judgment.
38. We notice, at this stage, that the learned single Judge in the judgment, under appeal, dated 25.07.2013, turned down the objection, raised on behalf of the State of Bihar, that no relief could be granted, when the Governing Body of the College had not approached the Court, the grant for rejecting the argument is that the petitioner No.1, being the Principal of the College, was ex-officio member of the Governing Body and there was no affidavit to the effect that she was not authorized by the Governing Body to maintain the writ applications. The reasoning, assigned by the learned single Judge, that the writ petitions could be treated, in such circumstance, to have been filed by the Governing Body, is, in our considered view, erroneous for more than one reason. Firstly, the Governing Body of the College was impleaded as party-respondents in the writ proceedings. Secondly, petitioner No.1 did not describe herself as a person, who had approached the Court, with writ Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 34/44 jurisdiction, as Secretary of the Governing Body; rather, she filed the writ petition, as an employee of the private College run by its Governing Body. Thirdly, we have perused the pleadings of writ application, filed by the Ad-hoc Committee of the College, bearing "C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015", paragraphs 33, 34 and 44 of which read as under:-
"33. That it is submitted that these writ petitions as mentioned above were challenged by the principals along with teaching and non teaching employees of the college in question.
34. That in two of the writ petitions the Governing body of the college in question had not petitioned this Hon'ble Cout through its Governing body.
44. That the petitioner has not moved this Hon'ble Court on any earlier occasion for the reliefs as prayed for in paragraph No.1 of this writ petition."
These statements, as aforesaid, take us to a definite conclusion that writ applications, filed in the years 1998, 1999 and 2002 by the writ petitioners, were not preferred by/at the instance of/under the authority of the Governing Body of the said private College. There is a specific averment by the Ad-hoc Committee of the College itself that the Governing Body had not petitioned before this Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 35/44 Court and it had never moved this Court for the relief sought for, i.e., for quashing of memo No.1366, dated, 09.11.2001.
39. In order to answer the first question, noted above, the status of the concerned private College, the relationship of the writ petitioners with the said College and statutory power, vested in the University under Section 4 (14) of the Act, have to be considered as a whole.
40. There is no dispute that the College is a private College affiliated to Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. It is not managed or maintained by the University, but by a Governing Body/Ad-hoc Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The writ petitioners are the employees of the said private College, affairs of which are managed by the Governing Body. The payments to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the College are made from the funds available with the College. Such funds may be raised by the institution from tuition fee, etc. It may get grant-in-aid by the University as sanctioned by the State Government or from any other source, as may be legally permissible.
41. The legal right of the writ petitioners is, thus, confined contractual obligation, which the College may be having under contract of employment.
42. Coupled with the above, Section 4 of the Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 36/44 Act, enumerates the purposes and power of the University. Sub-section (14) of the Act enables the University to enter into an agreement with other bodies and persons - (a.) to promote the purposes of the Act and (b.) to resume the management of any institution under them and also to take over its assets and liabilities. Before, however, entering into an agreement, under Section 4 (14) of the Act, the University is required to obtain sanction of the State Government or can do so upon receiving a proposal to this effect from the State Government. "The bodies" and "the persons", within the meaning of Section 4 (14) of the Act, for the purpose of converting an affiliated College into a constituent unit or for the purpose of providing fund or grant-in-aid, would certainly mean the body/person, running/managing institution. The writ petitioners, in our considered opinion, did not have any locus standi to question the decision of the State Government of stopping grant-in-aid; when grant-in-aid was being provided to the College and not to the writ petitioners. The employers of the writ petitioners did not raise any grievance and finally accepted the decision of the State Government.
43. In our view, the appellants are right in their stand that the writ petitions could not be maintained, at the instance of the writ petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petitioners had a right limited Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 37/44 to payment of salary in terms of the contract between them and the management of the College. If the management of the College had any grievance that the authorities, which constitute State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are discriminating among these institutions in the matter of sanctioning grant-in-aid or converting the affiliated Colleges into constituent units, they could have taken recourse to appropriate provisions of law. It is difficult to answer as to whether the management of the College, i.e., the Governing Body, was at all a State, at the relevant point of time, to get the College converted into a constituent unit, for, the conversion would, under Section 4 (14) of the Act, have the effect of assuming the management of the institution and taking over its assets and liabilities by the University.
44. Dealing with the last question, framed by us, we find that no statutory provision or policy of the State Government has been brought to our notice casting any legal obligation upon the State Government/the concerned University either to release grant-in-aid in favour of a private affiliated College or to convert such College into constituent unit of a University. A writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus, in our considered view, can be issued, in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 38/44 Constitution of India, only if an applicant, seeking a relief, is able to satisfy existence of specific legal right and such right having been violated. We are not impressed with the submission, made on behalf of the private respondents/writ petitioners that the State, cannot be allowed to commit breach of its policy in the matter of converting the College, in question, into constituent units in order to remedy infringement of rights under Clauses 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This is for two reasons. Firstly, in our view, no writ, in the nature of writ of mandamus, can be issued to disobey the policy of the State Government, when the policy cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Secondly, a private affiliated College cannot perforce be converted into a constituent unit by a decision of the State Government inasmuch as such conversion has to take place in terms of Section 4(14) of the Act. The said Act enables the University to enter into agreement with other bodies and persons for promoting the purposes of the Act to resume the management of any institution under them and to take over its assets and liabilities. In order to invoke the said provisions, there must be willingness of the management of such private institutions for its conversion into a constituent unit. We reiterate here that the Governing Body/management of the College did not ever raise any grievance, immediately Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 39/44 after other affiliated Colleges were being converted into constituent units, alleging discrimination.
45. We are, therefore, of the considered view that no writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari, quashing the order, passed by the Secretary, Department of High Education, dated 09.11.2001, could be issued, at the instance of the employees of the College, particularly, as the said order, dated 09.11.2001, was passed in a dispute between the Governing Body of the College and the State of Bihar, which was remitted by this Court, by an order, dated 09.07.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No.4733 of 1997.
46. Nothing has been shown to us, on behalf of the writ petitioners, that the Governing Body/management of the College ever took effective steps or raised any grievance that the College was not being converted into a constituent unit. From the judgment of this Court, dated 09.07.1999, delivered on a writ application, filed by the Governing Body of the College in the year 1997, we find that the Governing Body of the College never raised a grievance that non-conversion of the College into a constituent unit was in violation of any statutory provision or discriminatory on the ground that other similarly situated Colleges were being converted into constituent units denying such privilege to the said College.
47. In such circumstances, it is difficult to hold Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 40/44 that the writ petitioners, who were employees of the College, could maintain writ applications for the relief sought for. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ applications, set aside the decision of the State Government, dated 09.11.2001, passed by the Secretary, Education Department, apparently on the basis that the State-respondents had not been consistent with its profess policy, as contained in the resolution, dated 09.12.1982, and there was no valid distinction for the hostile discrimination meted out to the College.
48. We find it difficult to subscribe to the reasoning, assigned by the learned single Judge, cannot be upheld for the simple reason that this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to act in breach of its policy on the ground that it has acted in breach of its policy in the past, in the case of some other colleges. Secondly, there would be no question of granting the College a status of a constituent college before 23.12.1988 inasmuch as the College was granted permanent affiliation by the University on 23.12.1988. It is the clear stand of the State that, as per its policy, the Colleges, which had been granted affiliation prior to 09.12.1982, were decided to be converted into constituent Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 41/44 units of respective Universities or granted deficit-in-aid, as the case may be, and, in phased manner, 225 Colleges were made constituent units; whereas 31 Colleges were provided facility of deficit grant-in-aid. This College was not affiliated, prior to 09.12.1982, and, therefore, there was no question of granting constituent status or grant-in-aid to the present College. This fact is not in dispute that the College was granted permanent affiliation, in the year 1988, under "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" of the State Government.
49. The Supreme Court's decision, in L Hirday Narain (supra), does not, in any way, help the case of the writ petitioners. In the present case, question of any discrimination, in the matter of grant of sanction of grant-in- aid, does not arise since the College was granted affiliation under "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" of the State Government, which did not provide for any discretion to be exercised by the State Government of deviating from the said policy. On the basis of an independent decision taken by the Chief Minster of Bihar, the said Annual Recurring Grant was made available to the College; whereas "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti", was, admittedly, adopted under a decision taken by Cabinet of Ministers of State Government. Even if there had been breach of said policy, High Court, exercising power of judicial review, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 42/44 required to direct the State to act in further breach of the policy. There is no plea that the policy itself is unreasonable or arbitrary. For the same reason, the Supreme Court decisions, in case of Suman Gupta (supra) and S.G. Jaisinghani (supra), will also have no application to the facts of the present case. The "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" of the State Government does not leave any scope for discretion and, therefore, there would be no question to exercise discretion under the policy. If the State-respondents acted in breach of the policy, the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of such breach. We find from the records that grant-in-aid were sanctioned in favour of the College by way of carving out an exception making it clear that it would not be treated, as precedent, for other Colleges. The privilege, so given to the College, was against the State Government's policy of "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti".
50. Concluding, thus, we hold that the writ petitioners, who were mere employees of the College, in question, could not have maintained the writ applications raising the grievances, as raised therein, particularly, when the College did not challenge the order, dated 09.11.2001, passed in compliance of this Court's order. We further hold that the observations, made by the learned single Judge in paragraph 38 of the judgment, under appeal, that writ Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 43/44 petitioner No.1, being ex-officio member of the Governing Body treating herself to be the Governing Body of the College, she being the Principal and, therefore, the ex-officio member of the Governing Body, is an apparent error of record. Facts, noted above, come to show that the Governing Body of the College did not challenge the order, dated 09.11.2001, at any stage, before any forum, before filing of C.W.J.C. No.2082 of 2015 in February, 2015.
51. The writ petitioners were not able to make out any legal right, which existed with them, alleged violation of which could give rise to a writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
52. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the writ petitioners have not been able to show that they had legally and judicially enforceable right, which stood adversely affected by any action of the public authority, necessiting this Court to issue a writ/order/direction in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
53. In view of the discussions, as above, in our considered view, the judgment, under challenge, requires interference, which we, accordingly, do. The judgment, under appeal, dated 25.07.2013, is, accordingly, set aside.
54. C.W.J.C. Nos.13136 of 2001, 10437 of Patna High Court LPA No.430 of 2014 dt.08-01-2016 44/44 2002 and 7237 of 1999 stand dismissed.
55. Appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
56. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) I.A. Ansari : I agree (I. A. Ansari, ACJ.) Praveen-II/-
U