P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed a lecturer in Economics on 19.1.1975 by the Governing Body of Millat College, Parsa. According to him, he joined that post as Lecturer in the Department of Economics on 23.11.1975. He was appointed on the first sanctioned post. He was only a graduate at the time of his appointment. He did not possess a Postgraduate Degree at all; leave alone, a Postgraduate Degree with high second class. On 24.2.1977, he got a Master 'sdegree, not in high second class, but in second class. On 6.2.1978, the Governing Body of the College forwarded a proposal to the Bihar Universities Service Commission to give a concurrence for his temporary appointment. On 30.9.1978, concurrence for temporary appointment was given. According to the petitioner, the Chancellor wrote to the Vice -Chancellor of the Bhagal -pur University by communication dated 21.3.1983; approving the absorption of 20 temporary lecturers including the petitioner. On 19.8.1983, the Governing Body of the College confirmed the appointment of the petitioner.
(2.) WHILE the petitioner was thus working in the College, the College became a constituent College with effect from 30.8.1988 There were other colleges also which acquired the states of constituent colleges. An inquiry was set up to decide who were the persons qualified to be appointed. Apparently, anticipating trouble, the Association of Lecturers filed a writ petition in the High Court of Patna. By judgment dated 31.1.1997 reported in Bihar Rajya M.S.A.S.K.K Mahasangh V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 533, the High Court directed the maintenance of the status quo regarding the working lecturers until completion of the inquiry initiated regarding the validity of their appointments. The State of Bihar filed an appeal against the said decision in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, by judgment in the State of Bihar V/s. Bihar Rajya MSESKK Mahasangh, 2002 (1) PLJR 85 (SC), appointed Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court to inquire into the number of sanctioned posts of teachers and non -teaching staff available in 40 colleges which were converted into constituent colleges pursuant to the sanction letter dated 19.8.1986; how many proposals with regard to the creation of posts had been submitted to the Education Department before the cut -off date, 30.4.1986; how many teachers and non -teaching staff seeking their absorption were not appointed through the selection made by the Bihar State.Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission and whether they possessed the basic qualifications prescribed by the Act and the statutes and how many teachers and non -teaching employees would be entitled to be absorbed on the basis of the Government Letter dated 19.8.1986. The Supreme Court kept the appeal pending and ordered that during the pendency of the appeal, the concerned teachers and others who would be affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceeding will get their full salaries along with admissible allowances and other benefits subject to any other order made by that Court. It was made clear that the services of the teaching and non -teaching staff should not be disturbed during the pendency of the proceedings. It may be noted that this order was passed by the Supreme Court on 12.10.2001. Unfortunately, for the petitioner, after the inquiry as contemplated by the second proviso to Section 4 (14) and as empowered by Section 35(3) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the petitioner 'sservices were terminated on 10.6.2000. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The same was referred to a Division Bench and it was ordered on 8.8.2000 that the petitioner will not be disturbed pursuant to Annexure -10 notification informing the Sidhu Kanhu University that it was found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed as a lecturer (sic) of this, the Vice -Chancellor has been pleased to terminate the services of the petitioner as a lecturer. The petitioner could continue only on the basis of this interim order, which has necessarily to be subject to the final result of the writ petition. The. writ petition has subsequently been made over to this Court and that is how it has come up before us for final disposal.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner argued that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 12.10.2001 above referred to, the petitioner was entitled to continue until a decision was taken by the Supreme Court based on the report to be submitted by Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal. Counsel referred to certain orders passed by a Single Judge of this Court permitting such continuance by accepting such an argument. But on scrutiny of those orders of the learned Single Judge, we find that those orders have not considered the effect of the inquiry made by the University, which it was entitled to do in terms of the second proviso to Section 4 (14) and Section 35 (3) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and the finding therein that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as lecturer when he was appointed by the Governing Body of the private college. We are, therefore, not persuaded to follow the course adopted by two of the learned Single Judges of this Court relating to some persons similarly situated. After all, it is not as if a Division Bench, is bound by those orders as such. If we are persuaded otherwise, we are entitled to differ from them, though, normally, to maintain uniformity, we would have tried to adopt the (sic) that the same was permissible in law.;