IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16246 of 2010
Dr.Kumkum Singh, wife of Braj Nandan Singh, resident of Bara Bazar, P.S.-
Kotwali, Town and District-Munger. -Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The T.M.Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar, namely, Dr.
Rajeev Kumar Sinha.
2. The Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, namely, Dr. K.N.
Dubey.
3. The Pro Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, namely, Dr.
Dhrub Kumar.
4. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities in Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
-Respondents.
-----------
02 06.10.2010 This is an unfortunate case which really does not
involve any legal issue. It has emanated because of conflicting order
issued by the University, the Chancellor and in a way compounded by
status quo order by this Court. A cloud of confusion was created
which no one attempted to clear in a proper and desirable manner and
now it is left to this Court to rescue every body.
Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel for the
T.M.B. University, Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel for the
Chancellor, learned counsel for the intervener whose application is not
to be found on record and the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It appears that in the year 2009 a policy to transfer
teachers was issued by the office of the Chancellor. Pursuant thereto,
the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the year 2009 issued various
transfer orders transferring teachers from one constituent College to
other and from College to Department etc. It appears that in 2010 the
University revisited the issue. The Vice-Chancellor, accordingly,
-2-
issued orders staying his earlier transfer orders of the year 2009. The
effect of this was the teachers who had moved pursuant to the transfer
orders of 2009 came back by virtue of the stay granted by the Vice-
Chancellor himself in the year 2010. The Chancellor intervened and
stayed the order of the Vice-Chancellor of the year 2010 staying the
transfer orders. The effect was that the 2009 transfer orders got
revived. University circulated the order of the Chancellor accordingly
to the concerned Principals as well.
The petitioner is a Principal of a constituent College at
Naugachia under the T.M.B. University. Upon receipt of the
University communication, issued pursuant to the orders of the
Chancellor, petitioner issued relieving orders, relieving the teachers
mentioned in the transfer order to enable them to join the transferred
post. This was done on 16.03.2010. In the meantime, large number of
teachers, who were victims of this transfer order, cancellation and
retransfer, had moved this Court. On 30.03.2010 this Court ordered
that status quo should be maintained as of that day. The problem starts
now. Some of the teachers appeared to have moved the University
because their position had become anomalies. They were in the
original College under orders of transfer. They had not relieved
themselves to join the new post but were shown to be relieved by the
Principal (the petitioner). University constituted a team to ascertain the
status of these persons. At that stage University was not advised to
move this Court for any clarification nor did those teachers who were
parties to the writ petition in which status quo was granted choose to
-3-
move this Court for clarification of their status. The University
constituted a Committee on 05.06.2010 to examine the matter. At the
instance of the Committee, the University issued notification dated
23.07.2010 (Annexure-5). By this notification, University held and
directed that the persons named therein, in view of the status quo order
of this Court passed on 30.3.2010, be allowed to rejoin their original
place of posting. The order aforesaid relates to different persons of
different Colleges and Departments as well. This puts the petitioner in
a tight spot. She had on 16.03.2010 relieved some of the teachers,
who were under orders of transfer. The status quo order followed on
30.03.2010. Now the University was directing her to permit those
persons to rejoin by order of University being issued on 27th July
2010. She represented to the University as to what is to be done but
she was also advised to come to this Court for clarification. The later
was the right step taken by her. She intervened in the writ petition
seeking clarification. This Court heard the said writ petition being
C.W.J.C. No.4229 of 2010 and disposed of by order dated 08.09.2010,
noticing intervention of the Principal and noticing that in view of the
uncertainty created by transfer, stay of transfer, stay of stay of transfer
and status quo granted by this Court, the matter should now be cleared
of uncertainty by the Chancellor and it was expected that the
Chancellor would act accordingly. But, it appears that before
Chancellor could take any action, reactions were there in the
University. Petitioner, the Principal was feeling aggrieved by being
forced to disobey the status quo order of this Court, the Vice-
-4-
Chancellor was feeling aggrieved as his authority was being
undermined by the Principal, the University Officers were aggrieved
by the conduct of the Principal, who was not obeying the direct orders
of the Vice-Chancellor passed pursuant to the Committee. This
friction should have ended if the Chancellor intervened in the matter
and cleared the situation.
Petitioner’s defence is that she has only wanted to be on
the right side of the Court. On the other hand, the Vice-Chancellor felt
that certain persons were wrongly shown as relieved and should be
permitted to rejoin, notwithstanding the orders of the status quo, as the
Vice-Chancellor was only restoring the as it existed. The outcome of
this friction was that the petitioner’s financial and administrative
power was seized by the impugned order and she was asked to report
to the University, effectively transferring her from the College to
wherein in the University was not known.
In my view, everyone has become over sensitive to a
non-issue. If any clarification was required, it should have been
sought from the Court because the last confusion if any or if at all was
created by this Court by grant of status quo. No one except the
petitioner approached this Court. Not even the persons who were
party to the writ petition and were affected. They chose not to move
this Court instead chose to move the University.
In fitness of things, pending final orders from the
Chancellor, which I am informed would be taken very soon, if not
already taken, the Vice-Chancellor should consider restoring the
-5-
position of the petitioner as the Principal and, consequently, the
petitioner would permit the persons, as contained in communication of
the order as contained in Annexure-5, to join because on that day
when the said writ petition was finally disposed the University had
already issued orders to the Principal to accept the rejoining of those
persons.
In my view, University and Colleges are meant for
academics and not as a battle ground for vindicating prestige of
individual personalities.
Let all parties act accordingly.
With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)