P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. - (1.) LETTERS Patent Appeal No. 336 of 2003 is filed by the Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka, respondent No. 2 in WP (S) No. 6084 of 2002 [reported in j. Letters Patent Appeal No. 377 of 2003 is filed by the State of Jharkhand, respondent No. 4 in WP (S) No. 6084 of 2002. These appeals are directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge dated 22.4.2003 in that writ petition.
(2.) THE Siddhu Kanhu University (hereinafter referred to as the University) was governed by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Appointments of teachers and others in the University were governed by that Act and were made in consultation with the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, herein after referred to as the Commission, established under the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission Act, 1987, herein after referred to as 'the Service Commission Act'. On 29.6.1999, the University requested the Service Commission to advertise for certain posts and make selections for appointment to those posts. One such post was that of the Registrar of the University. Pursuant to this request, the Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for applications. The last date fixed for submission of applications was 15.7.2000. The writ petitioner was working in Magadh University, governed by the Bihar State Universities Act. He applied for the post of Registrar. Since he was employed in Magadh University, his application had to be forwarded by that University to the Service Commission. This was done only on 11.9.2000, after expiry of the last date fixed for receipt of applications. On 15.11.2000, the Bihar Re -organisation Act, 2000 came into force and the State of Bihar got divided into two, the re -constituted State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. On re - organisation, the Magadh University continued to be in the State of Bihar, governed by the Bihar State Universities Act and the Service Commission Act. The Siddhu Kanhu University, the requisitionist, fell within the State of Jharkhand. On 13.12.2000, a notification was issued adapting the Bihar State Universities Act in terms of Section 85, Part X, of the Bihar Re - organisation Act with the modification that the Act thereafter, be called 'the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000'. It was provided that in the place of the expression, "Chancellor, University of Bihar", the expression, "Chancellor, University of Jharkhand" would be substituted. It was also provided that wherever in the Bihar State Universities Act, the expression "Bihar State" or "Bihar" occurred, they would stand substituted by the words "Jharkhand State" and "Jharkhand". But the Service Commission Act, 1987 was not adapted. On 15.1.2001, the Service Commission sought clarification from the Universities falling within the State of Jharkhand as to whether in view of the reorganization of the State with effect from 15.11.2000 it should continue with the selection process concerning those universities or not.
(3.) ON 16.8.2001, the Service Commission informed the writ petitioner that an interview for the post of Registrar, Siddhu Kanhu University would be held on 11.9.2001. On 28.8.2001, the Siddhu Kanhu University wrote to the Service Commission recalling or withdrawing the request it had made on 29.6.1999 for advertisement and selection to the post. On 10.9.2001, the State of Jharkhand acting through the Governor, issued a notification clarifying that the process of appointments after the 15th November, 2000, in various universities within Jharkhand would be done by the State pf Jharkhand and any recommendation made by the Service Commission or the College Service Commission will not be recognized, if it was received after 14.11.2000. In Clause 2. the Said order also stated that the recommendations for promotions under the rules which expired on 23.9.1995 and which were pending due to procedural delays would be recognized. Clause 3. provided that the order will come into force with effect from 15.11.2000. Ignoring the withdrawal of the request by the university by its letter dated 28.8.2001 and the notification dated 10.9.2001, the Service Commission went ahead with the interview and interviewed the petitioner and others on 11.9.2001. On 5.10.2001, the Chancellor issued an order to the effect that no recommendation made by the University Service Commission would be binding on the Universities of Jharkhand and the Universities in the State of Jharkhand will not honour any such recommendation. On 21.11.2001, the Chancellor modified the earlier order to the extent of vacating the embargo on promotions based on the recommendations of the University Service Commission. But the interdict regarding the recommendation and making of appointments stood untouched or was not affected. Ultimately, on 6.3.2002, the Service Commission made a recommendation that the writ petitioner be appointed as the Registrar of the Siddhu Kanhu University. This recommendation was ignored by the University. The writ petitioner thereupon made various representations. On 28.8.2002, the Registrar of Siddhu Kanhu University wrote to the Chancellor submitting that the representations of the writ petitioner seeking appointment on the basis of the recommendation made by the Service Commission be rejected. It was thereupon that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition on 12 -11.2002 praying for a declaration that the Bihar University Service Commission constituted under the Bihar University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commissioner Act, 1987 continued to operate in the State of Jharkhand by virtue of Section 66 of the Bihar Re -organisation Act, 2000 and the respondents, the Chancellor, the University and the State of Jharkhand, were bound to consider and act upon the recommendation made by the Service Commission in connection with the appointment of officers and teachers in universities situated in the State of Jharkhand, including the Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka, for a writ of certiorari quashing the letter of the Chancellor dated 5.10.2001 containing the direction not to act on the recommendation/concurrence received from the Service Commission after the creation of the State of Jharkhand until further directions from the Chancellor; for a direction to the Chancellor and to the Siddhu Kanhu University, to immediately appoint the petitioner to the post of Registrar, Siddhu Kanhu University based on the recommendation made by the Service Commission as contained in its letter dated 16,3.2002 with all consequential benefits and for a direction to the Chancellor and the University to produce a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 17.8.2001 referred to in the letter dated 5.10.2001 issued by the Chancellor. According to the writ petitioner, the Siddhu Kanhu University having requested the Service Commission to advertise the post and select a suitable candidate, was bound to appoint a candidate recommended by the Service Commission notwithstanding the formation of the State of Jharkhand under the Bihar Re -organisation Act, 2000 in view of Section 66 of that Act and in view of the fact that the University Act had been adapted by the State of Jharkhand and the Service Commission Act continued to be operative in view of Sections 57 and 58 of the University Act and Section 84 of the Re -organisation Act. This plea of the writ petitioner was sought to be met by contending that the request by the University was made in the year 1999 when it was a part of the State of Bihar; that on bifurcation of the State, the University fell within the territory of the State of Jharkhand; that the Service Commission Act had not been adapted by the State of Jharkhand, that in the light of the order issued by the Governor, the power for which was traceable to Section 85 of the Re -organisation Act, the recommendations by the Service Commission could not be accepted by the Siddhu Kanhu University; that even otherwise, even before the interview was held by the Commission the University had withdrawn its request or requisition and on such withdrawal, the Service Commission had no further authority to continue the process of selection or to go through the process of selection and to make a recommendation and that the right of the State of Jharkhand to make its own selection cannot be questioned and cannot be circumscribed by resort to the provisions in the University Act or the Service Commission Act and in this situation, the writ petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. It was also contended that in any event, merely because the writ petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Service Commission, the writ petitioner would not get a right to be considered for the post and could not compel the University to employ him. Thus, it was contended that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The State of Jharkhand, in addition to supporting this position of the University also raised a contention that the Service Commission was not an inter -State body corporate within the meaning of Section 66 of the Bihar Re -organisation Act and consequently, Section 66 of the Act had no application. The learned Single Judge held that the Service Commission was functional in the State of Jharkhand and it had power to make recommendations. The University was therefore not justified in recalling the request made to the Commission on a misconceived reasoning that the Commission had no jurisdiction after the appointed day; that notwithstanding the adaptation/ amendment of the Bihar University Act, the Service Commission has power to recommend for appointments in the Universities now within the State of Jharkhand and the recommendations had to be dealt with in accordance with Section 58(3) of the Bihar Universities Act (now Jharkhand Universities Act) and the reason for not acting upon the recommendation of the Service Commission was not legal and valid. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the Vice -Chancellor/Chancellor of the Siddhu Kanhu University to pass a clear order on the recommendations made by the Service Commission in the light of his findings. Thus, the writ petition was allowed.;