IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1289 of 2003
Devendra Mishra, son of Late Mahakal Mishra, village Pachahi, PS Madhepur, district Madhubani
- Petitioner.
Vs.
1) Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga through its Registrar.
2) Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.
3) Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga - Respondents.
6 25.3.2011
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel
appearing on behalf of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit
University.
The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 31.10.2002
contained in Annexure 3 by which he has been compulsorily retired
from service by the Vice Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga
Sanskrit University on the ground that his service was not satisfactory.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
rendered satisfactory service to the University and there was nothing
against him except that in the year 2000 when he was punished in a
departmental proceeding.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Vice
Chancellor of the University does not have the power to pass the order
impugned and the power vests with the University under section 67 of
the Bihar Universities Act, 1976.
Counsel for the University, on the other hand, submits that
the powers of the Vice Chancellor are mentioned in section 10 of the
aforesaid Act. Referring specifically to sub-section (11) of section 10,
it is submitted that it specifies as follows :
“The Vice Chancellor shall exercise general control over
2
the educational arrangement of University and shall be responsible for
the discipline of the University. It shall be lawful for the Vice-
Chancellor to take all steps which are necessary for maintaining the
academic standard and administrative discipline of the University.”
Sub-section (5) of section 10 further indicates that the
Vice Chancellor has been described as the „Principal Executive‟ and
„Academic Officer‟ of the University, the Chairman of the Syndicate
and of the Academic Council. Sub-section (11) of section 10 on the
other hand directs that the Vice Chancellor can exercise control over
the general education as well as maintain administrative discipline in
the University. The decision to compulsorily retire an employee has
thus to be decided by the Vice Chancellor, who holds administrative
control over the University by virtue of sub-section (11) of section 10
and by virtue of the fact that he is the executive officer of the
University.
The order impugned as contained in Annexure 3 would
indicate that there was a meeting held and in the said meeting a
decision was taken to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It is, thus,
apparent that the decision was not taken solely by the Vice Chancellor
but was taken by a duly constituted committee. Counsel for the
petitioner relies on section 67(b) to submit that the power to retire an
incumbent does not lie solely in the hands of the Vice Chancellor.
Sub-section (b) of section 67 reads as follows :
“(b) The University may require any teaching or non-
teaching employee, who, reckoned from the date of his first
appointment, has completed the qualifying service of 23 years or a
total service of 27 years, to retire from the University service, if it
considers that his conduct or efficiency is such as does not justify his
continuation in the service.”
3
It is emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that the power
give under section 67 has the over riding effect, inasmuch as it
requires that decision should be taken by the „University‟.
It is contended that the order should have been approved
by the Syndicate or Senate. Section 21 deals with the power of the
Senate. On perusal of sub-section (2) of section 21, it would appear
that the power of the Senate have been defined, the powers do not
relate to having any administrative control over the teaching and non-
teaching staff of the college. Similarly section 23 of the Act deals
with the powers of the Syndicate. The power of the Syndicate is
restricted to management of property, regulating statutes and
regulations, managing the funds placed under the disposal of the
University for specific purpose, transfer of property from one
University to another, repeal of ordinance and exercise all such duties
as prescribed under the Act and the Statutes. It may be pointed out
here that the appointing authority of the petitioner was/is the Vice
Chancellor
Thus, this court finds that the order of the Vice Chancellor
does not suffer for want of lack of power to pass the order, specifically
in view of the fact that the decision has been taken collectively by the
committee headed by the Vice Chancellor.
This writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)