IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 2212 of 2010
UTTAM LAL THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 2497 of 2010
RAM BINOD SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 2528 of 2010
HARIMOHAN JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 2926 of 2010
JANARDAN PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 3655 of 2010
RAMESH JHA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 4031 of 2010
GAGDISH ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 4042 of 2010
DR ANIS AHMAD & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 5020 of 2010
DR NIRMALA JHA & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 5516 of 2010
PROF ARUN KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 5530 of 2010
PROF DR.BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
2
CWJC No 5571 of 2010
PROF AMITA KUMARI MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 5946 of 2010
PROF RAM KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6072 of 2010
PROF (SMT) KALYANI PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6226 of 2010
MUCH KUND THAKUR & ORS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6233 of 2010
RAM BILAS MAHTO & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6251 of 2010
SMT PUNITA SINHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6393 of 2010
PROF SHISHIR KUMAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6411 of 2010
PROF DR BINAY KUMAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6475 of 2010
PROF MOHD NAYYER AZAM
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
WITH
CWJC No 6494 of 2010
DR SHIVA KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE VICE CHANCELLOR L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6578 of 2010
3
PROF DHIRENDRA NATH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
WITH
CWJC No 6579 of 2010
PROF SITA RAM JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
WITH
CWJC No 6604 of 2010
DR GOVIND JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6631 of 2010
CHANDRA SHEKHAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6644 of 2010
GOPI RAMAN PRASAD SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6661 of 2010
PROF KAMESHWAR JHA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR
WITH
CWJC No 6686 of 2010
SUDHINDRA NATH THAKUR
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 6982 of 2010
AMAR NATH SINGH
Versus
THE V C, L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7328 of 2010
DR CHANDRA GUPTA KR SHARMA & ORS
Versus
THE L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7385 of 2010
JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
WITH
CWJC No 7413 of 2010
RATAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY
4
Versus
THE L N MITHILA UNIVERSITY & ORS
-----------
3 16.08.2010 It is rather regretful that inspite of order dated 19.07.2010
directing the State to file comprehensive counter affidavit, no
comprehensive counter affidavit is filed. What is filed, in the name of
counter affidavit, is an affidavit only to mislead the Court in all material
aspects. It is, in categorical terms, stated in the counter affidavit that it is
not the responsibility of the State that State does not release funds to
University for individual Court cases or on individual basis meaning
thereby that the State is not concerned with the individual beneficiaries
under the University which would be the responsibility of the University.
On the other hand, the State issues mandatory directions as contained in
Annexure-A threatening the University not to pay a single pie above what
is assessed by the State’s Auditor to be paid to any individual staff. This
is contradiction par excellence which only State can explain. On one
hand, it wants this Court to believe that it does not want to interfere in
University matters and, as such, is not to take any responsibility, on the
other hand, it makes deep in-road into activities of individuals in the
University. Court wonders why this Jekyll and Hyde attitude? If the
State thinks that it can seek full accounts of utilisation individually from
the University then it becomes the responsibility of the State directly to
ensure payment to every individual of the University. It cannot shirk that
responsibility provided it has the statutory authority to make such
intrusions into the affairs of the University which is an autonomous body
not subject to superintendence of the State.
5
Let State file a proper comprehensive counter affidavit
disclosing its statutory authority to interfere in the affairs of the
University as also the factual aspects on each individual case as it has
appointed its own Auditors to scrutinise accounts of every individual
employee of the University.
The University, on the other hand, prays for time. It puts on
record that the Vice Chancellor having been changed, the Finance Officer
and the Financial Advisor having resigned, it is difficult even to give
proper instructions in the matter. To top it all, with effect from 01st July
2010, there has been strike of non-teaching employees of the University
and in Colleges which is only partially withdrawn only recently and, as
such, they find it difficult to file comprehensive counter affidavits.
Considering the aforesaid facts, all these cases of L N
Mithila University would stand adjourned to 06th September, 2010 and to
be listed accordingly For Admission.
Pendency of the writ petitions would not come in way of L
N Mithila University in at least liquidating 75% of the legitimate dues as
claimed by the employees across the Court.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)