V.K.GUPTA, R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE main question involved in this appeal is as to whether Section 9 (7)(ii) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be construed/read to mean that under the powers vested in the Chancellor to issue direction to the Universities in the Administrative or Academic interest of the Universities which he considers to be necessary, such directions can be issued which may adversely or prejudicially affect or tend to adversely affect the rights or interests of third parties, and further as to whether the Universities will be bound to implement such directions?
(2.) THE relevant facts in short are as follows : The petitioner (appellant) filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being C.W. J.C. No. 822/2000 mainly for quashing the order of his termination from the post of computer operator in Ranchi University issued vide Memo No. Esst/ C/252 -62 dated 10 -3 -2000 under the signatures of the Registrar, Ranchi University (Respondent No. 4) Relevant portion of the said notification (Annexure -1) reads as follows : In pursuance of the Chancellors Secretariat, Patna, contained in letter No. 733 G.S. (I) dated 22 -2 -2000 and Honble Chancellor orders passed in the case of C.W.J.C. No. 2529/98 the Vice -Chancellor has been placed to terminate the services of the following persons with immediate effect: 1. Sri bhupendra kumar -System Analyst 2. Sri shuba Ranjan Saha -System Programmer 3. Sri sunil kumar -Computer Operator By order of the Vice -Chancellor Sd/ P.P. Verma Registrar Ranchi University, Ranchi Memo No. ESSTT/c/252 -62 Dated, the 10 -3 -2000 The petitioners case is that the Ranchi University advertised for appointment on the post of Computer Operator and other posts on or about 23 -1 -1996. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied against the post of Computer Operator as also Programmer. An interview letter was issued to the petitioner. In the meantime, Dr. D.P. Gupta joined as Vice -Chancellor of the Ranchi University. Afresh advertisement was again published on or about 21 -9 -1996 in which it was made clear that the persons who have already applied against the previous advertisement need not apply again. However, the petitioner complied with certain formalities, and thereafter, an admit card was issued to the petitioner by the Registrar, Ranchi University for appearing in the written test to be held on 27 -10 -1996. Thereafter, personal interview, of the selected candidates was held on 21st and 22nd December, 1996. After the interview a panel was prepared in which the petitioners name appeared as Serial No. 1 for the post of Computer Operator and accordingly the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1798 -1804/96 dated 23 -12 -1996 on the said post. It was on purely temporary basis subject to approval to the State Government. The petitioner after resigning from his earlier employment as Computer Instructor of Yogada Satsang College, Ranchi gave his joining on 23 -12 -1996. The petitioner has made further statements to show that the sait appointment was a valid and legal one. Petitioner further stated that the post of Computer Operator was lying vacant since 1988 and the same was filled up after completion of all the formalities, and prescribed rules etc. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the order of termination was passed without following principles of natural justice. Had an opportunity been given to him, he could have explained all the aforesaid and other relevant matters to the authority to show that he should not be terminated.
(3.) BY order dated 14 -2 -2000 passed by the Chancellor, enclosed with Annexure -5 (communicated to the University vide letter M. 733GS (1) dated 22 -2 -2000), the services of the petitioner and two others were directed to be cancelled after observing the normal procedure. Then the University has issued the order of termination dated 10 -3 -2000. Even the said order dated 14 -2 -2000 was passed by the Chancellor behind the back of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner was not even a party to C.W.J.C. No. 2529/1998 preferred by one Shri Bhupendra Kumar, which has been referred in the aforesaid orders.;