Mukesh Kumar Singh, Madan Singh, Kumar Chandi Thakur and Bhagwan Das vs The Chancellor Universities of Bihar (Governor), The Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, The Govt. of Bihar

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.—In the first writ petition, originally, there were four writ Petitioners. One of them was regularized and the other two have instructed the learned Counsel not to press their applications. Thus we are left only with the first Petitioner - Mukesh Kumar Singh. In the second writ petition, there is only one Petitioner. The Petitioners claim regularization of their services in Raj Narayan College, Hajipur (Vaishali), which is a constituent College of the B.R. Ambedakar Bihar University.

Counter affidavits of the State and the University are on the records with their replies.

Heard the parties.

It appears that the College was established in the year 1952 and got its affiliation up to Intermediate standard in Arts in 1956. In 1956 it got affiliation up to degree level in Arts. Similarly it got affiliation up to Intermediate level in Science in 1957 and up to degree level in 1961. On 1.4.1975, the State Government took a decision to take over this College as a constituent College of the Bihar University, then in existence. On 8.2.1976, the College was made a constituent College of the B.R. Ambedakar, Bihar University. The College having been made constituent College, the Inter University Board settled the Staffing Pattern of the College on 14.1.1980.The University accordingly informed the College by its communication dated 30.9.1980 informing the College about the staffing pattern as duly prepared by the Inter University Board and approved by the State Government and the University. With reference to Staffing Pattern, as approved, it would be seen that the post which is now occupied by the Petitioner, remaining two Petitioners were duly mentioned in the Staffing Pattern. It is not disputed by the University rather admitted that in case of the two remaining Petitioners, the Principal of the College made an advertisement seeking appointment to various posts, pursuant to which the Petitioners made applications and were duly selected and were appointed in the year 1982. In 1985, the College made a recommendation to the University for regularization of, inter alia, the two Petitioners, which the University after scrutinizing and being satisfied, forwarded to the State. Thus seen it is not in dispute that the Petitioners were appointed pursuant to public advertisement and scrutinized by the College as against the posts available as per Staffing Pattern. Both the Petitioners were eligible for appointment as per University statutes. The University had recommended their cases for regularization.

The matter being pending before the State Government and the State Government taking a decision in the matter, Petitioner filed his writ application in the year 1998 for their regularization. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide letter dated 18.9.1999, the State turned down the request of regularization of the Petitioners on the ground that they were not duly appointed. In what manner State considered their appointments not in accordance with law was not stated therein. Petitioners again reiterated that the process was duly followed and it is because of that the university had recommended for their regularization. It is not in dispute that once again in 2006, the University re-examined the matter and taking notes of decision of this Court, recommended the matter for re-consideration before the State where it is pending. In the meantime, the Petitioner in the second writ petition has retired.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that the university has been seeking sanction of the posts on which the Petitioners are claiming to be appointed but till date the State has not sanctioned those posts. That being the position, the appointments of the Petitioners on unsanctioned posts cannot be taken cognizance of and accordingly cannot be regularized.

Learned Counsel for the university fairly concedes that as per Staff Pattern fixed by the Inter University Board and approved by the State and the University, posts on which the Petitioners were recruited had been duly noticed under the Staffing Pattern long before their appointments. Their appointments having been made pursuant to advertisement by the Principal of the constituent College is not in dispute.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , being the judgment of Full Bench of this Court wherein a similar question had arisen.

I have examined the judgment of the Full Bench and in my view it does not come to aid of the Petitioners. The judgment clearly notes that once posts come within the Staffing Pattern then the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar Universities Act would not come into play with full force. Section 35 of the Universities Act, inter alia, provides that there cannot be an appointment on unsanctioned post. All appointments to have prior to the approval of the State Government. The Full Bench has categorically held that so far as posts falling under Staffing Pattern are concerned, till they are not sanctioned, they will be deemed to be sanctioned as that is the basic requirement of the College, in question, as duly approved by the Staffing Pattern. In such a case University can seek post facto approval. In my view, in the present case, there does not appear to be any dispute about the Staffing Pattern and the posts of the two Petitioners mentioned therein. There is no dispute that there was advertisement issued, pursuant to which the Petitioners applied and were selected, as noticed above. They were appointed by the Principal and the University has been seeking approval of regularization of their services. At the first instance, State had rejected their claims on cryptic ground of their appointments not being properly made. The University has persisted in sending their names for regularization. It is admitted that the State is now considering the matter and the matter has been pending for almost one and a half decade, they have not yet chosen to sanction the post, what to talk of regularization and that is now being made a ground for not regularizing the Petitioners on the posts.

In my view it is high time State woke up its obligation. The staffing pattern was approved by the State, as drawn up by the Inter University Board in the year 1980.We are in the year 2010. Three decades have gone by and the State has not woken up to its obligation to sanction the post. I will not go into the question the reason why this step- motherly treatment. Suffice to say that it is a time to woke up from its deep slumber and grant post facto sanction to the posts at least from the date of Staffing Pattern and then re-consider the matter about regularization of the Petitioners'' services. This should be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

However, if the State finds that the regularization of Petitioners'' services is called for, then the State would ensure sanction and payment of salary would be made to the Petitioners in respect of the period for which they have worked. The State would pass order in all these regards after hearing the Petitioner and by a speaking order, which would duly be communicated to the Petitioner as well.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.