RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. THE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were rival candidates for being appointed as the Principal of Sar- dar Patel Memorial College. Biharsharif (hereinafter referred to as "the college"), and the respondent No. 4 was appointed by the order contained in Annexure 13, which is challenged in the present writ application as illegal. It is said that the appointment was made in pursuance of a general direction given by the Chancellor in his letter Annexure 19. There is also a prayer for quashing the said direction.

(2.) According to the ease in the writ application, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the College in 1974 by the Governing Body and the College Service Commission accorded concurrence in 1977 as per Annexure 4 to the petitioner's appointment for a period of three months. Steps were taken for permanent appointment to the post and an advertisement was issued, by the College Service Commission. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were applicants and their cases were considered by the College Service Commission (respondent No. 3). The Commission did not recommend the name of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 was recommended as the first nominee and another candidate as the second choice, but the Governing Body by a resolution dated 16-3-80 (Annexure 8 held that they did not fulfil all the conditions of the advertisement and so could not be appointed. The Commission was requested to reconsider the matter. The Commission wrote back that the. post would be readvertised. In the meantime the Governing Body resolved that the petitioner who was working as the principal since 1974 should be appointed on permanent basis and a request was accordingly made to the Commission. While the suggestion was under the active consideration of the Commission (as stated by it in Annex. 12), the college became a constituent college of the Magadh University. On the 19th Feb. 1981, the Chancellor issued a general order as contained in Annexure 19 directing the authorities concerned to act upon the recommendation of the Commission received up to 30th November, 1980, and to make appointments. The respondent' No. 4 "also had in the meantime moved the Chancellor by filing a representation which was pending. In March, 1981, the Chancellor called for a report in the matter of the respondent's representation. On 20th of April, 1981,. the impugned appointment of respondent No. 4 was made by Annexure 13- The petitioner then filed a representation before the Chancellor unsuccessfully.

(3.) In support of the petitioner's case, Mr. Mukhopadhya contended that in view of sub-s. 3 (a) of S. 57A of the Bihar State Universities Act. 1976, the recommendation of the Commission was valid only till the date on which the college was made a constituent college. The recommendation, therefore, was not in existence in the eye of law for the University to act on it. His second point is that in view of the provisions of S. 57A(2)(c) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 , the recommendation of the Commission was valid only for a period of one year from the date on which it was made and since the University has appointed the respondent No. 4 after this period, the appointment is illegal. Reliance has also been Placed on s. 2(9) of the Bihar State University Service Commission Act, 1976.