TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who submits that he has been authorized by Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate to appear and conduct arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to pay salary for the period he has actually worked together with interest. He further makes a prayer for quashing the order as contained in AnneXure -3 which was passed pursuant to the order of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5384 of 1998 (Annexure -1). It is evident upon reading the said order dated 7.9.1999 as contained in Annexure -1 that the Patna High Court noticed an appointment letter dated 8.8.1988 (Annexure -2/2 hereof), which is equivalent to Annexure -B appended to the counter affidavit. It is further evident upon perusal of the aforementioned appointment letter, that the petitioner had himself applied for being appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics before the Principle, Deoghar College subject to approval of the University. Annexure 'A ' appended to the Counter Affidavit is that application. The Patna High Court further took into consideration the fact that the appointment was on the temporary basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 700.00 per month and the payment was subject to approval of the University. It further took into consideration a letter of the University dated 9.4.1990 (Annexure 2/3 to this writ application) by which the Registrar of the said University wrote to all. Heads of the Departments and others including the Professors -in -Charge of constituent Colleges informing them that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, all ad -hoc teachers in service on February, 10, 1989 shall continue till selection was made by the University Service Commission and that they shall be paid in terms agreed for the period in which they have actually worked. It was further mentioned that only ad - hoc teachers contained in the list of ad -hoc teachers which was enclosed along with the letter should be allowed to continue and work till further orders. The name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 82 of that letter, which has been marked Annexure -2/3 (see running page 41). In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken that on account of a voluntary application (Annexure 'A '), the then Professor -in -Charge ignored the rules and regulations, and without prior permission of the University, appointed the petitioner a Lecturer in the Mathematics on a fixed salary of Rs. 700.00 per month in anticipation of the approval of the University which was never granted. It is further stated that the Professor -in -Charge or the Principal of a College is not an authority to make such appointments and that no teacher could have been appointed without advertisement and following selection procedure. Upon perusal of the aforementioned letter dated 9.4.1990 as contained in Annexure -2/3, it is evident that it contained a list showing the name of the petitioner at serial No. 82. This letter was issued by the Bhagalpur University much after the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1988. Moreover, at this stage, the University cannot be allowed to say that the Principal or Professor -in -Charge should not have appointed him because if that was the position, there is no explanation coming forth as to why the said University wrote that letter at all on 9.4.1990, including the name of the petitioner in the list of ad -hoc teachers. It obviously means that the said University, at that stage, recognized the status of the petitioner as a member of the teaching staff. Additionally, in the earlier writ petition also, the aforementioned letter dated 9.4.1990 was duly taken note of and therefore, the observation of the said Hon ble Court is worth reproducing : - - Bulaki Ram Versus Jatru Mahali "Annexure -2/3 is the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 8.8.1988, by which petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on fixed scale of Rs. 700.00 per month. Said payment was subject to approval of the University. Annexure -5 is the letter issued by the Bhagalpur University dated 9th April, 1990. By the said letter issued by the Registrar of the University written to all the Heads of Post Graduate Department of Bhagalpur University, Administrative Head of P.G. Centre and Principals/Professor -in -charge of constituent college, it was communicated that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court all, the ad -hoc teachers in service of February, 10, 1989 shall continue till selection is made by the University Service Commission and they shall be paid in terms agreed for the period for which they have actually worked. The list enclosed along with Annexure -5 shows the name of the petitioner at serial No. 82. In view of aforesaid fact it is accepted by the authorities of the University that petitioner was appointed as an ad -hoc teacher and pursuant to order of the Registrar of the University as contained in Annexure -5 as he was an ad -hoc teacher in service on February, 10, 1989 and he was allowed to continue in service and as a direction has already been made to pay him for the period he has actually worked and shall be paid in terms agreed. Appointment letter of the petitioner itself shows that his appointment has been made on a salary of Rs. 700.00 per month."
(3.) IT was in this background that the Patna High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order of that writ petition by which the Vice Chancellor had held that nothing was payable to the petitioner till regular appointment was made. While doing so, the Patna High Court observed : - - "I am aforesaid such interpretation cannot be given to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court as well as the order by which the matter was remitted back to the Vice Chancellor." ;