RAJ MANGAL PRASAD Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing Annexure -1 by which the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the post of Principal, M.J.K. College, Bettiah to the senior most teacher and the staff of M.J.K. College, Bettiah, and pending his subsequent posting to report to the Vice -Chancellor (Annexure -1). It may be stated here that this order has been issued by the Registrar, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur on the directive of the Chancellor as contained in the wireless message dated 6th March, 1986. Facts: The petitioner was originally appointed as Principal of R.P.S. College, Jaintpur, Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bettiah College. The petitioner went out of the University for a period 1983 to 1986. On his return from foreign service, the Vice -Chancellor posted him as Principal, M.J.K. College, Bettiah, by transferring Dr. S.S. Mishra, the present incumbent to L.N. Tirhut College, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner, pursuant to the order of the Vice -Chancellor (Annexure -2) joined the post of Principal at Bettiah on 18.2.1986 (Annexure -3). Thereafter, the Chancellor stayed the transfer of Dr. Sita Saran Mishra, the then incumbent of M.J.K. College, by issuance of a wireless message to the Vice -Chancellor (Annexure -4). The stay, however, was vacated (within a week i.e. 28.2.1986 (Annexure -5) stating that the decision of the University does not require interference from the Chancellor. On 1.3.1986 the University restored its original order of 15.2.1986 and directed its compliance by the concerned person (Annexure -6). It also appears that as per direction of the Chancellor the University asked Dr. S.S. Mishra to report for duty as Principal, L.N.T. College, Muzaffarpur (Annexure -7). Thereafter the impugned Annexure -1 had been issued asking the petitioner to report to the Vice -Chancellor for his posting after handing over charge of the Principalship of the College at Bettiah to the senior most teacher.

(2.) Mr. B.C. Ghose, senior Advocate, has contended that the Chancellor has no power to issue a direction of the kind impugned under the Bihar University Act, 1976 and assuming he is vested with such a power there has been an abuse thereof by issuance of Annexure -1. Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the Vice -Chancellor, has contended that the University has not violated any guideline issued by the Chancellor in exercise of its power under Sec. 10(14) of the Act being inferior in hierarchy to that of the Chancellor it has carried out the direction of the Chancellor issued from time to time. Mr. Ojha, appearing on behalf of the Registrar, watched the proceeding of the Court.

(3.) Mr. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Chancellor, on the other hand, submitted that under Sec. 9 (1) of the Act, the Chancellor is head of the University as also the President of the Senate. Apart from the powers conferred upon him under Sec. 9of the Act, the Vice -Chancellor is required to conform to the guideline approved by the Chancellor in the matter of transfer of the employees of the University. According to him the Chancellor has the right to issue guideline from time to time as well, depending upon administrative exigencies as also for excellence of education in the University. In the present case, according to the learned Advocate General, two persons having sought to cling to the post of principalship of Bettiah College, the Chancellor, in his wisdom, decided that none of them should be the Principal of the said College. The Chancellor therefore, directed Dr. Mishra to join as the Principal of a College at Muzaffarpur and directed the petitioner to report to the Vice -Chancellor for a proper posting. He, therefore, submitted that the Chancellor has favoured none. Therefore, the argument that there has been abuse of power is groundless.