Dr. Ram Naresh Kunwar And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4921 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7701 of 2017
     ======================================================

Dr. Raj Kumar Mazumdar, S/o Late Gosto Bihari Mazumdar, resident of Saida Bazar, Hilsa, Nalanda, at present posted as Principal, S.D.M. College, Udantpuri, District Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar.

4. The Magadh University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi -110002 through its Secretary.

5. The University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi-

110002 through its Secretary ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2250 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, S/o Sri Ram Yatan Singh, A-35, Patel Janta Nagar, East of Samrat Hospital, Bhagwat Nagar Road, Kumhrar, PO- Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Agam Kuan, Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

2. Dr. Arun Kumar Jha, S/o Late Indra Kant Jha, R/o 6/RC-6 (North of Water Tower of Sector-6), Bahadurur Housing Colony, PO- Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Agam Kuan, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. The Magadh University through its Registrar, Bodh Gaya.

5. The Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

6. The Financial Adviser, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

7. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

8. The Finance Officer, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

9. The Principal, College of Commerce, Arts and Science, Kankarbagh, Patna.

10. Dr. Baban Singh, Son of Sri Sheo Muni Singh, at present Principal, College Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

of Commerce, Arts and Science, Kankarbagh, Patna, residing at Shivam Shubham Kunj, Lane No.03, Ganesh Puram, Gola Road, Danapur, District- Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14428 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Dr. Usha Singh, w/o Prof. Rajendra Kumar Singh, r/o Usha Raj Kunj, Plot No. A/23, Ashokpuri Colony, Khajpura, P.S.- Shastrinagar, District- Patna.

2. Dr. Sheela Singh, w/o Amarnath Singh, r/o Veer Kunwar Singh Path, New Area, P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.

3. Dr. Baban Singh, s/o Late Shiwmuni Singh, r/o Shivam Shubham Kunj, Ganesh Puram, Lane No. 5, Gola Road, Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Magadh University through its Registrar, Bodh Gaya.

6. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

7. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya.

8. University Grants Commission through its Secretary, New Delhi.

9. Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Sinha, Son of Sri Ram Yatan Singh, A-35, Patel Janta Nagar, East of Samrat Hospital, Bhagwat Nagar Road, Kumhrar, P.O.- Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Agam Kuan, Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

10. Dr. Arun Kumar Jha, S/o late Indra Kant Jha, R/o 6/RC-6 (North of Water Tower of Sector-6), Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Agam Kuan, Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

11. The Patliputra University through its Registrar, Patna.

12. The Vice Chancellor, Patliputra University, Patna.

13. The Registrar, Patliputra University, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14478 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Dr. Prem Kant Jha, S/o Late Kapileshwar Jha, Resident of Mohalla-

Makranda, P.O.- Manigachi, P.S.- Manigachi, District- Darbhanga and presently posted as Principal, Ras Narayan College, Pandaul, Madhubani.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

2. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, S/o Late Jugeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- A.N.S Colony, Hanuman Nagar, Stadium Road, P.O.- Madhubani, P.S.- Madhubani, District- Madhubani and presently posted as Principal K. S. College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga.

3. Dr. Jai Ram Das, S/o Late Kishori Prasan Das, Resident of Village-

Bahadurpur, P.O.- Kanti, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur and presently posted as Principal, U. R. College, Rosera, Samastipur

4. Dr. Purna Chandra Lal Das, S/o Late Anant Bihari Lal Das, Resident of Mohalla- Parari Chhapaki, East of Gas Godown, P.O.- Lakshmisagar, District- Darbhanga and presently posted as Principal, B. M. College, Rahika, Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Higher Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Hon'ble Chandellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Principal Secretary to H.E. the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna.

7. The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga, Bihar.

8. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwarnagar, Darbhanga, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14493 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, son of late Nawal Kishore Singh, Resident of Flat No. 301- A, Satyam Apartment, Alpana Market, Patliputra, P.S. Patliputra, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga through its Registrar.

5. Vice Chancellor, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

6. Registrar, L. N. Mithila University, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14508 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Dr. Ram Naresh Kunwar, son of Late Binda Kunwar, Resident of Village-

Gaddopur, P.O. - Mahuwa, P.S.- Mahuwa, District- Vaishali.

2. Dr. Waqil Asharfi, son of Syed Jabbar Asharfi, Resident of Village- Bibipur, P.O.- Kako, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad.

3. Dr. Nirmala Kumari, wife of Sri Ramendra Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-

Narayani Chhatrawash, P.O.- Ramana, P.S.- Mithanpura, District- Muzaffarpur.

4. Dr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, son of Late Domi Lal, Resident of Mohalla-

Shivajinagar, Makhdumpur, Bagicha, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director High Education, Govt. of Bihar.

3. The Additional Secretary, Education Dept., Govt. of Bihar.

4. The Chancellor, University of Bihar.

5. The Vice-Chancellor, Babasahev Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14539 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Ram Shrestha Roy, Son of Late Latu Roy, resident of Village- Sonaul Khan, P.O.- Gharwara (Sitamarhi), P.S.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi, Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Hon'ble Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary of Hon'ble Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Patna.

4. Jai Prakash University, Chapra through its Registrar.

5. The Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

6. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14562 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Raj Kumar Madhukar, son of Late Mishri Rajak, Resident of Mohalla- New Ganguali (Kali Shathan) P.O. and P.S. Dalomiya Nagar, District- Rohtas. At present working as Principal, Gram Bharti College, Ramgarh, Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Veer Kunwar Singh University Ara, through its Registrar.

6. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

7. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14688 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Rakesh Verma, son of late Sita Ram Verma, resident of Principal's Residence, Patna Law College Campus, P.O.- Mahendru, P.S.- Sultanganj, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. The Patna University, Patna through its Registrar.

5. Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna

6. Registrar, Patna University, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14743 of 2017 Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

======================================================

1. Dr. Ram Prakash Chandra Verma, son of Late Satrughan Prasad Singh, permanent resident of Mohalla- Patel Nagar, P.O.- T.N.B. College, Bhagalpur.

2. Dr. Ram Bachan Singh, son of Late Shri Niwash Singh, Flat No.-202, Dayal Niketan Appt., Tilak Nagar, North S. K. Puri, Boring Road, P.S.- North S. K. Puri, P.O.- Patliputra, District- Patna.

3. Dr. Nisha Rai, wife of Shri Chandra Bhushan Rai, resident of Flat-1B, Nishat Bibhuti Apartment, Badi Khangerpur Chowk, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna.

3. Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna.

4. T. M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar.

5. Vice-Chancellor, T. M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

6. Registrar, T. M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14744 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Upendra Kunwar, son of Late Sawaliya Kunwar, resident of Village- Dohar, Post- Dohar, P.S.- Rasulpur, District- Chapra (Saran).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar.

5. Vice Chancellor, B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

6. Registrar, B. R. Ambekar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14748 of 2017 ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Dr. Asad Hasan, son of late Ahmad Hussain, resident of M. M. Colony, P.S.- Siwan, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.

5. Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra.

6. Z. A. Islamia College, Siwan, through its Secretary.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14917 of 2017 ====================================================== Brij Kishore Tiwary, aged about 63 years, son of Late Jagdish Tiwary, resident of P.O.- Machhager Lakshi Ram, P.S.- Hathwa, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga through its Registrar.

5. Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

6. Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15644 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Hari Narayan Thakur, son of Late Vidya Nand Thakur, R/o Mohalla- Shankatmochan Dham, P.S.- L.N.M.U. Town- Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, posted as Principal, Adinath Parasmani Madhusudan Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rahua- Sangram, Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

5. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga through its Registrar.

6. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

7. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15800 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Umesh Prasad Singh, son of late Damodar Prasad Singh, R/o Village and P.O.- Rahimpur, Khagaria, District- Khagaria, posted as Principal, Awadh Bihari Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rahimpur, Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Chancellor of Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna.

4. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.

5. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, through its Registrar.

6. The Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

7. The Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7701 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Brajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shilpa Singh, GA 12 with Ms. Abhanjali, AC to GA 12 For the MU : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2250 of 2017) Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Krishna Chandra, advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG 15 Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, AC to AAG 15 For the MU : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate with No.10 Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14428 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madanjit Kumar, GP 20 For the MU : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Patliputra : Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, Senior Advocate with No.9 and 10 Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Narayan Singh, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14478 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP 23 with Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to GP 23 For the LNMU : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14493 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, SC 13 For the LNMU : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14508 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG 15 with Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG 15 For the BRA Bihar : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14539 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Senior Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastva, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, SC 13 For the JP University : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bijay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14562 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP 17 with Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP 17 For the VKS University : Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14688 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madanjit Kumar, GP 20 For the Patna University : Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14743 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, SC 16 For the TMB University : Ms. Rekha Prasad, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14744 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP 17 with Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP 17 For the BRA Bihar : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14748 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP 23 with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP 23 For the JP University : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Bijay Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14917 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG 15 with Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Mr. Rakesh Narayan Singh, AC to AAG 15 For the KSD Sanskrit : Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15644 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Namrata Mishra, Advocate Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shilpa Singh, GA 12 with Ms. Abhanjalli, AC to GA 12 For the KSD Sanskrit : Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15800 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Namrata Mishra, Advocate Ms. Archana Jha, Advocate For the Chancellor : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP 26 with Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, AC to GP 26 Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha, AC to GP 26 For the KSD Sanskrit : Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, Advocate University For the UGC : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH CAV JUDGMENT Date : 08-10-2021

The petitioners have moved the Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:

CWJC No. 7701 of 2017:

"That by this writ petition the petitioner carves indulgence of this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Respondents to superannuate the petitioner at the age of 62 years and pass an order that he is entitled to continue on the post of principal or other teaching post or posts up to the age of 65 years."

Further, the petitioner has prayed for the following

reliefs:

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

"I. After adjudication your lordships may be pleased to pass an order that the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 (Bihar Act 22, 2012) cannot be applied retrospectively.

II. That the Principal of the college or University is also entitled for increased period of age of retirement i.e. upto 65 years.

III. An appropriate writ or order or direction be passed restraining the respondents to superannuate the petitioner/ Principal in the age of 62 years and he be allowed to continue on his post upto 65 years of age.

IV. Any other order or orders which your lordships deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed."

CWJC No. 2250 of 2017:

"(i) For issuance of writ of quo-warranto for removal of Dr. Baban Singh, respondent no. 10 from the post of Principal, College of Commerce, Arts and Science, Patna who is holding a post in public office now as an usurp and without any legal authority after attaining the age of 62 years on 06.11.2016 and retirement on 30.11.2016 in view of the fact that the Principal is no more a teacher/teaching staff of the University after amendment in definition of Teacher in section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 through Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act 2012, published in Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated 27.12.2012 and the said amendment has been made effective retrospectively with effect from the date the UGC Regulation, 1991 came into operation on 5th October, 1991.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Magadh University to immediately notify the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

retirement of Dr. Baban Singh from the post of Principal with effect from 30.11.2016.

(iii) For issuance of direction to the respondent Magadh University for not allowing Dr. Baban Singh to continue as Principal since he has superannuated on 30.11.2016 in view of section 67 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and clause 8(f) of APPENDIX-I of UGC Regulations, 2010 and the post of Principal in the said college may be held by other appropriate and competent person as per law.

(iv) Any other relief or reliefs the petitioners are entitled for in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No. 14428 of 2017:

"i. For an appropriate writ, order of direction for quashing the communication dated 20.09.2017 contained in Memo No. 1703 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the Additional Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar (Respondent No.

4) has informed the Vice Chancellor, Magadh University (Respondent No. 6) that since the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 2017 Amendment Act) by which "Principals" have been included in the definition of "Teachers", is prospective in its operation, such Principals who have attained or exceeded 62 years of age on 18.05.2017 (being the date on which the 2017 Amendment Act came into force), would stand relieved from their service with effect from their originally prescribed date for their superannuation (i.e. when they attained 62 years of age).

ii. For an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 23.09.2017 contained in Letter No. 394/GIA/17 (Annexure-7) passed by the Vice Chancellor, Magadh Universities Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

(Respondent No. 6) whereby and whereunder in terms of the aforesaid communication dated 20.09.2017 contained in Memo No. 1703 (Annexure 6), the petitioners have been held to have retired from service on their respective dates of attaining the age of 62 years.

iii. For a declaration that the post of "Teacher" as defined in Section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pursuant to its amendment vide Bihar State Universities (Amendment & Validation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 2012 Amendment Act) included the post of Principal and that the 2017 Amendment Act whereby the post of "Principal" has explicitly been included in the definition of teacher under Section 2(v) is only clarificatory in nature.

iv. For a further declaration that "Principal" being included in the definition of "Teacher" under Section 2(v) of the Act as it stood amended vide the 2012 Amendment Act, the petitioners would superannuate only on attaining the age of 65 years i.e. the same age of superannuation as that of university teachers in terms of the decision of the State Govt. contained in Memo No. 489/10/49/GIA dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure 3) whereby the age of superannuation of university teachers had been enhanced from 62 years to 65 years with effect from 30.06.2010.

v. For a consequential appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to re-instate the service of the petitioners on their respective posts of principals with all consequential benefits and entitlements including wages, perks etc. for the period the petitioners stood ousted from service on account of the impugned orders.

vi. For an ad interim writ, order or direction Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

staying the operation of the impugned orders (Annexure 6 & 7), restoring status quo ante as it existed prior to 20.09.2017 and commanding the Respondents to re-instate the petitioners on their respective posts of Principals and allow the petitioners to discharge their duties during the pendency of the present writ application.

vii. For any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem the petitioners to be entitled or deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No. 14478 of 2017:

"i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions in the Nature of Certiorari or Writs, order of orders for Quashing the Order as contained in Letter No.-2711 dated 26.09.2017 issued by the Governor's Secretariat, Bihar whereby and where under the Petitioners who are discharging the duties on the Post of Principal in different Colleges under the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, have been directed to retire from the date of completion of 62 years of age on the ground that Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 (Bihar Act, 21 of 2012) excluded Principals from the definition of Teachers and its re-inclusion by way of Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 (Bihar Act, 24 of 2017) having come into being only on 15.05.2017 with Prospective effect as such, the Principals having automatically become a member of Non-teaching Cadre would not get the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 62 to 65 granted to "Teachers"

with effect from 30.06.2010 vide Education Department letter no.-2925 dated 07.12.2011, who have already completed the age of 62 years during the intervening Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

period i.e. between the date when the post of a Principal was excluded from the definition of Teacher (27.12.2012) and re-included in the definition of the "Teacher" through Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 (Bihar Act, 24 of 2017) and the effect of re-inclusion in the definition cannot be given its retrospective effect. ii. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions in the Nature of Certiorari or Writs, order or orders for Quashing the Order as contained in Letter No.-SC/3498-3536 dated 23.09.2017 issued by the University, in compliance of the direction of the State Government as contained in Memo No.- 1703 dated 20.09.2017, by which the Petitioners who have been discharging the duties on the Post of Principal, have been declared to have superannuated from the date of attaining the age of 62 years, by treating these Petitioners/Principals to be a member of Non-teaching Cadre contrary to the Constitutional Mandate and guidelines issued by the UGC and as also by misinterpreting the legislative provision amended up-to-date.

iii. For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus or Writs, Order or Orders for staying the Operation of Impugned letters by which the Petitioners have been directed to retire from the Post of Principal by treating them to be a member of Non-teaching Cadre contrary to the scheme of legislation and Constitutional Provisions, during the pendency of the instant proceeding before this Hon'ble Court.

iv. For further kind indulgence of this Hon'ble court to look into the matter and the concerned respondents may be directed to produce all connected records for perusal of the same for passing an appropriate order in order to demonstrate that the decision was Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

taken in a fair and just manner after observing due process of law.

v. For any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble court may grant in the interest of the petitioners by directing them to continue on their substantive place of posting till the age of 65 years with all such benefits as would applicable to similarly situated Teachers/Persons who have allowed to continue merely because they fall within the cutoff date and further to pass any such Order/Orders, which may be deemed appropriate and necessary in the interest of justice."

CWJC No. 14493 of 2017:

"(i) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 20/09/2017 being memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been communicated that the principals posted and working in colleges under different universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from the services of different universities within the State of Bihar while declaring that that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively;

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 23/09/2017 issued by the L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), by which, amongst other persons, the petitioner was retired from the post of principal working in the services of the University with effect from 31/12/2016, upon attaining the age of 62 years in furtherance of the directions contained Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

under the aforesaid letter dated 20/09/2017 being memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government;

(iii) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the University to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity of Principal in the services of the University till he attain the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976;

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 26/09/2017 by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, by which the vice chancellors of different universities within the State of Bihar had been directed, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 and further, that clarifications be sought from principals as to why they did not inform their respective universities regarding the date of their retirement, that is the date of which they attained 62 years of age notified for retirement of principals and other non- teaching employees;

(v) Issuance of declaration holding that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State University (Amendment), Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of teacher and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefit of age of superannuation as 65 years as is applicable Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

in the cases of teachers working in the services of the University.

(vi) Issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated 23/09/2017 by the University in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government;

(vii) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.14508 of 2017:

"(i) For quashing of the office order contained in Memo No. Gen/100/Muz dt. 22.09.2017 issued under the signature of Registrar of Babasahab Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the " Bihar University") whereby and whereunder petitioners who were posted as principals in different constituent colleges under the same university were treated to be retired with immediate effect on completion of 62 years of age on or before 18.05.2017 pursuant to a letter issued by the Additional Secretary, Education Dept. Govt., of Bihar, Patna contained in memo no. 15/M1-20/2017-1703 dt. 20.09.2017 pertaining to retirement of Principals of the constituent colleges on completion of 62 years of age on before 18.05.2017.

(ii) For quashing of letter no. 15/M1-

20/2017-1703 dt. 20.09.2017, issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Education Dept., govt. of Bihar, Patna Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

whereby and where under all universities of this State have been intimated that all such principles of constituent colleges who have, completed 62 years of age on or before 18.05.2017 shall be treated to be retired with immediate effect.

(iii) For an appropriate direction to allow the petitioners to continue in their service and to discharge their duties as principal in their respective colleges up-to the age of superannuation i.e. 65 years.

(iv) For granting any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are found entitled too."

CWJC No.14539 of 2017:

"(a) To issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the office order as contained in memo no. 15/M1-20/2017 (part 1)- 1703 dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure-12) issued by Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna through which direction has been issued to the authorities of Universities of State of Bihar to get retired all those Principals who have completed 62 years of their age or more, after 27.12.2012 and before 15.5.2017, on the ground that as per advise of Law Department of State of Bihar, Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act 2017 (Bihar Act 14 of 2017) has been implemented from prospective effect.

(b) To issue further writ of Certiorari for quashing the office order as contained in letter no. 1230-Est-I dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure-11) issued by Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra, through which on the basis of aforesaid memo dated 20.09.2017, the petitioner has been intimated that due to completion of his age as 62 years on 31.01.2016, he would be treated retired w.e.f. 31.1.2016 and he has been asked to hand over charge of his post to next senior teacher namely, Professor Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

(Dr.) Saroj Kumar Verma of the said college.

(c) To issue further writ of Certiorari for quashing the letter no.- PU-6/2017-9711 dated 26.9.2017 (Annexure-16), issued by Principal Secretary of the Hon'ble Chancellor, to the extent through which directions of Hon'ble Chancellor has been communicated to the Vice-chancellors of all the Universities to compulsorily superannuate all those Principals who have completed 62 years of their age in between 27.12.2012 to 15.5.2017 on the ground that Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation ) Act, 2012 (Bihar Act 22 of 2012) had excluded the Principals from the definitions of " Teacher" and Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act 2017 (Bihar Act 14 of 2017), which included the principals within the definition of "Teacher" again, has been implemented from prospective effect.

(d) To issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to discharge their legal obligation to extend benefit of enhancement of age of teachers from 62 years to 65 years as notified and not to interfere in any way, in peaceful working of petitioner as Principle of Rajendra College, Chapra and to allow the petitioner to work on his said post till his attaining age of 65 years and to pay his salary and other allowances till then as usual.

(e) To any other relief or relief's for which the petitioner may be found entitled to."

CWJC No.14562 of 2017

"(i) To quash memo no. 1703 dated 20.09.2017 issued by the Additional Secretary Education Department Government of Bihar (Respondent no. 4) whereby and whereunder a decision has been communicated to all the Registrar of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the Universities of Bihar including the Veer Kunwar Singh University Ara that those Principal who have attained the age of 62 before 18.05.2017 will be deemed to have been retired retrospectively on the day they have completed 62 years of the age. A copy of memo no. 1703 dated 20.09.2017 is annexed as Annexure 1 to this application.

(ii) Further to quash notification contained in memo no. 2084/Estab/17 dated 23.09.2017 issued by the Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara (Respondent no. 7) whereby and whereunder, relying upon memo dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure 1) a direction has been issued to all the Principals of the constituent/Affiliated colleges of this University that those Principals who have attained the age of 62 before 18.05.2017 will be deemed to have been retired retrospectively on the day they have completed 62 years of the age. A copy of memo no. 2084/Estab/17 dated 23.09.2017 is annexed as Annexure-2 to this application.

(iii) Further to quash the notification contained in memo no. 2085/Estab/17 dated 23.09.2017 issued by the Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara (Respondent no. 7) whereby and where under, relying upon memo dated 20.9.2017 (Annexure 1) and memo dated 23.09.2017 (Annexure-2) has superannuated the petitioner who is working on the post of Principal, Gram Bharti College, Ramgarh (Kaimur) with effect from 13.12.2016 on the ground that on 31.12.2016 the petitioner has attained the age of 62 years respectively. A copy of memo no. 2085/ Estab/17 dated 23.09.17 is annexed as Annexure 3 to this application

(iv) Further to quash the notification contained in memo no. 127/Estab/17 dated 23.09.2017 issued by the Registrar Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara (Resp. no 7) whereby and whereunder one Dr Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Jawaharlal, Principal A.S. College, Bikramganj has been transferred to G.B. College Ramgarh with immediate effect where the petitioner is working on the post of Principal. A copy of memo no.

127/Estab/17dated 23.09.2017 is annexed as Annexure 4 to this application.

(v) Further to direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from discharging his duty on the post of Principal Gram Bharti College, Ramgarh and further the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on his post of Principal till he attains the age of superannuation ie., 65 years of age.

And for any other appropriate relief(s) as per the facts and circumstances of the case."

CWJC No.14688 of 2017:

"(i) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been communicated that the principals posted and working in colleges under different universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from the services of different Universities within the State of Bihar while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 are to be implemented prospectively.

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order dated 22/09/2017 issued by the Registrar of the Patna University, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the University") by which amongst other persons, the petitioner has been retired from the services of the University from the post Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

of Principal, Patna Law College, Patna which is a constituent unit of the University in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government.

(iii) Issuance of direction or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the University to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity of Principal in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under Section 64

(a) of the Patna University Act, 1976.

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 26/09/2017 by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, by which the Vice Chancellors of different universities within the State of Bihar had been directed, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 and further, that clarifications be sought from principals as to why they did not inform their respective universities regarding the date of their retirement, that is the date on which they attained 62 years of age notified for retirement of principals and other non- teaching employees.

(v) Issuance of declaration holding that in terms of the provisions of section 2(r) of the Patna University Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Patna University (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of teacher and as such, is entitled for being extended the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

benefit of age of superannuation as 65 years as is applicable in the cases of teachers working in the services of the University;

(vi) Issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated 22/09/2017 by the university in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government;

(vii) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.14743 of 2017:

"(a) for quashing, (I) the Memo No. 15/M 1- 20/2017 (ansh 1)-1703, dated 20.9.17 (Annexure-11) issued by Sri Manoj Kumar, Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Education Department whereby the Registrar, Magadh University along with Registrars, all the traditional Universities of Bihar have been directed to take steps for superannuating those Principals who have attained the age of 62 years or more, (ii) Notification No. 229/2017 contained in and communicated under Memo No.- B/24547-

634 dated 22.9.2017 (Annexure-12) issued by the Registrar, T. M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur pursuant to the letter of Under Secretary, Education Department contained in and communicated vide 15/M 1-20/2017 (Ansh-1)-1703, dated - 20.9.17 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been compelled to retire on completion of 62 years of age before 18.05.2017 with immediate effect and to give the charge of the office of the Principal to Prof.-In-charge Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

immediately and (b) further for direction to the respondent authorities to include the Principal under the category to teacher with retrospective effect pursuant to the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act 2017 (Bihar Act-14, 2017)."

CWJC No.14744 of 2017:

"(i) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been communicated that the principals posted and working in colleges under different universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from the services of different Universities within the State of Bihar while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively;

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the office order dated 22/09/2017 issued by the Registrar of BR Ambedkar, Bihar University, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), by which, amongst other persons, the petitioner has been retired from the services of the University from the post of Principal, L.S. college, Muzaffarpur, which is a constituent unit of the University in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government;

(iii) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

authorities under the University to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity of Principal in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under Section 67 (a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976;

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 26/09/2017 by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, by which the Vice Chancellors of different universities within the State of Bihar had been directed, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 and further, that clarifications be sought from principals as to why they did not inform their respective universities regarding the date of their retirement, that is the date on which they attained 62 years of age notified for retirement of principals and other non- teaching employees;

(v) Issuance of declaration holding that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of teacher and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefit of age of superannuation as 65 years as is applicable in the cases of teachers working in the services of the University;

(vi) Issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

22/09/2017 by the university in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government:

(vii) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.14748 of 2017:

"(i) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been communicated that the principals posted as working in Colleges under different universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from the services of different universities within the State of Bihar while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively.

(ii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 23/09/2017 issued by the Secretary, Z.A. Islamia College, Siwan (hereinafter referred to as "the College"), by which in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, the petitioner has been retired from the post of Principal of the College with effect from 31/01/2016 upon attaining the age of 62 years;

(iii) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the College to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity of Principal in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976;

(iv) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 26/09/2017 by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, by which the vice chancellors of different universities within the State of Bihar had been directed, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 and further, that clarifications be sought from principals as to why they did not inform their respective universities regarding the date of their retirement, that is the date on which they attained 62 years of age notified for retirement of principals and other non- teaching employees.

(v) Issuance of declaration holding that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of teacher and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefits of age of superannuation as 65 years as is applicable in the cases of teachers working in the services of the University.

(vi) Issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

issuance of the office order dated 23/09/2017 by the College in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government.

(vii) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.14917 of 2017:

"(i) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been communicated that the Principals posted and working in Colleges under different universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from the services of different universities within the State of Bihar while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively.

(ii) Issuance of direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities under the College to allow the petitioner to continue in the capacity of Principal in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976;

(iii) Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

quashing letter dated 26/09/2017 by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, by which the vice chancellors of different universities within the State of Bihar had been directed, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 and further, that clarifications be sought from principals as to why they did not inform their respective universities regarding the date of their retirement, that is the date on which they attained 62 years of age notified for retirement of principals and other non- teaching employees.

(iv) Issuance of declaration holding that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of teacher and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefit of age of superannuation as 65 years as is applicable in the cases of teachers working in the services of the University.

(v) Issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated 23/09/2017 by the College in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the concerned authorities under the Education Department of the State Government.

(vi) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.15644 of 2017:

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

"I. For quashing of office order contained in memo no. 1608 dated 05.10.2017 issued by the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga by which the petitioner has been informed that he has been retired from service as Principal, Adinath Parasmani Madhusudan Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rahua-Sangram, Madhubani w.e.f. 31.03.2015 on completing 62 years age in the light of letter no. 15M 1- 20/2017 (Part-1)-1703 dated 20/09/2017 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar and thereupon allow the petitioner to continue as Principal of the College in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. II. For quashing of letter no. 15M1-20/2017 (Part-1)/memo no. 15M1-20/2017 (Part-1)- 1703 dated 20/09/2017 issued by the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been informed to the Registrar of all the Universities that the Principals posted and working in Colleges under different Universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from service while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively.

III. For also quashing of letter no. PU- 6/2017-9711 dated 26/09/2017 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, directing the Vice Chancellors of different Universities of Bihar, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the Principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 with further, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

direction to seek clarifications from Principals as to why they did not inform their respective Universities regarding the date of their retirement (date on which they attained 62 years of age).

IV. For issuance of declaration that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of "Teacher" and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefit of age of superannuation at 65 years as is applicable in the case of teachers working in the services of the University. V. For issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated 05.10.2017 by the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar.

(vi) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

CWJC No.15800 of 2017:

"I. For quashing of office order contained in memo no. 1609 dated 05.10.2017 issued by the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga by which the petitioner has been informed that he has been retired from service as Principal, Awadh Bihari Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Rahimpur, Khagaria w.e.f. 31.10.2015 on completing 62 years age in the light of letter no. 15M 1-20/2017 (Part-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

1)-1703 dated 20/09/2017 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar and thereupon allow the petitioner to continue as Principal of the College in the services of the University till he attains the age of 65 years, which is prescribed as the age of superannuation for teachers working in the services of the University in terms of the provisions contained under section 67(a) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. II. For quashing of letter no. 15M1-20/2017 (Part-1)/memo no. 15M1-20/2017 (Part-1)- 1703 dated 20/09/2017 issued by the Education Department of the State Government, by which it has been informed to the Registrar of all the Universities that the Principals posted and working in Colleges under different Universities within the State of Bihar, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to 18/05/2017 have to be retired from service while declaring that the provisions contained under the Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017 is to be implemented prospectively.

III. For also quashing of letter no. PU- 6/2017-9711 dated 26/09/2017 issued by the Principal Secretary of the Governor, Raj Bhawan, Patna, directing the Vice Chancellors of different Universities of Bihar, inter alia, to compulsorily superannuate all the Principals who have completed 62 years of age between 27/12/2012 to 15/05/2017 with further, direction to seek clarifications from Principals as to why they did not inform their respective Universities regarding the date of their retirement (date on which they attained 62 years of age).

IV. For issuance of declaration that in terms of the provisions of section 2(v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 as amended by section 2 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 and section 2 of the Bihar State University Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

(Amendment) Act, 2017, "Principal" is included in the definition of "Teacher" and as such, is entitled for being extended the benefit of age of superannuation at 65 years as is applicable in the case of teachers working in the services of the University. V. For issuance of an ad interim order commanding the concerned respondent authorities to restore status quo ante in favour of the petitioner as existed prior to issuance of the office order dated 05.10.2017 by the Registrar of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga in furtherance of the directions contained under the letter dated 20/09/2017 bearing memo no. 1703 issued by the Education Department, Govt. of Bihar.

(vi) Any other relief/reliefs that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Interlocutory Application No. 6895 of 2018 in

CWJC No.7701 of 2017

"3(v) Respondent may also be directed to quash the memo no.-FSIN/PEN/1000/18 dated 08.08.2018 by which the salary paid since 01.011.2014 to 30.09.2017, to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered/adjusted thrugh the pensionery benefit."

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7701 of 2017

and Analogous Cases

2. Keeping in mind the commonalities of the

issues involved and the nature of reliefs sought, the instant

batch of matters has been heard together and is decided by this Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

common judgement. For convenience, CWJC No.7701 of

2017 is taken as the lead case.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by various

notifications/orders/letters/communications by which their

services as principals of colleges has been deemed to be

terminated on account of the interpretation accorded, by the

concerned authorities, to Section 2(v) of the Bihar State

Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as

per the amendment brought about by the Bihar State

Universities (Amendment & Validation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter

referred to as the '2012 Amendment Act') and the

corresponding pari materia amendment to Section 2(r) of the

Patna University Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Patna University Act') by the Patna University (Amendment

and Validation) Act, 2012. The Act and the Patna University

Act are collectively referred to hereinafter as the 'Acts'. The

2012 Amendment Act reads thus:

"Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 [Bihar Act 22, 2012] An Act To amend the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23, 1976) Preamble.--Whereas, it is most expedient to make the University Act consistent with and in conformity with Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

standards of University Grants Commission (U.G.C.);

And, whereas, anomalies exist in the provisions of The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 so amendment is essential for bringing the Act on the line of different regulations/ direction/ instruction of UGC and define teacher in conformity with the definition incorporated in various regulations of UGC and orders issued by Govt. of India.

And, whereas, vide government letter no. 1216 dated 18-09-75 all the Vice-Chancellors of the State have been informed of the abolition of the post of Demonstrator in the light of UGC recommendation. Decision of the State Govt. has also been communicated to the Universities that the Demonstrators appointed on the sanctioned post before 01-01-1973 shall continue but the post shall not be filled up in case of vacancy caused due to retirement or death of the said post holders. On the post sanctioned before 01-01-1973 and appointed temporarily by 18-09-1975, such temporary demonstrators were to be examined in respect of qualification and on finding them fit for permanent appointment concurrence was to be obtained from Bihar State University Service Commission.

And, whereas, all University including Magadh University had been informed vide letter no. 1789 dated 26-

08-1977 that on the recommendation of Govt. of India, the post of Demonstrator had been abolished and that no appointment was to be made on such posts. In this letter, Govt. of India decision was quoted as follows :- "The revised scale of Rs. 500- 900 is for the existing Demonstrator/Tutors only. In Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

future Demonstrator/Tutors shall not be appointed in the Universities and Colleges" ̧ And, whereas, the UGC Regulation, 1991 prescribed qualification for appointment to teaching post.

And, whereas, the UGC recognises only three tier teaching post namely Lecturer, Reader and Professor.

And, whereas, definition of Teacher under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 is not clear, due to which non teaching employees not holding the qualification of a teacher have been defined as a Teacher from the date of appointment and the question of adjustment of service of non-teaching employees appointed/ working against Unsanctioned Post on the basis of Staffing Pattern has arisen. Therefore for promotion of educational environment and for attaining academic excellence in these institutions as per the expectation of U.G.C., it is essential to amend the existing relevant provisions of The Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.

And, whereas, the Division Bench of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in LPA No. 274/1997 (R) while partly allowing the appeal set aside the direction of the Single Judge dated 3.4.1997 in CWJC No. 2176/1996(R) to treat the Lab. Assistant as teacher.

And, whereas, the apex court while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 4215-16/2002 dated 22.7.2002 held that the order of the Division Bench cannot be faulted with apart from the fact that no such specific prayer was made. The Bench observed that such general direction could not be issued as the qualifications and other relevant Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

facts in respect of each Lab. Assistants may have to be examined by the State Government while considering their representation. The Hon'ble apex court did not find merit in the challenge made against that part of the order of the Division Bench. The apex court held that Lab personnel can't be declared Teacher.

And, whereas, after the Cabinet decision letter No. 1115 dated 14.6.2006 was issued for re-designation of Lab. Personnel.

And, whereas, modification in the letter no. 1115 was made vide memo no.

1456 dated 1.8.2006 without cabinet decision.

And, whereas, on 18.12.2008 the State Govt. clarified that re-designation as Demonstrator was issued only for pay scale and allowance and not to convert them as teacher.

And, whereas, on 21.9.2010 the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1377/2010 held that re-designated Demonstrators acquired the status of teacher in terms of the definition of teacher under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 and as such entitled to all benefits.

And, whereas, on appeal LPA Court in LPA No. 981/2011 dated 11.7.2011 held that inspite of the decision of the Division Bench of the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of Bihar in its wisdom took a decision on 14.6.2006, to re-designate the graduate Laboratory Assistant/Junior Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Incharge/ Lab. Technician/Technical Assistant, etc. appointed in the Laboratory of the constituent colleges Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

as Demonstrators. Under the said decision, it was specifically decided that since re-designation as Demonstrators the concerned employees will be entitled to all the benefits of the post of Demonstrator.

And, whereas, the apex court dismissed SLP(C) No. CC-1324/2012 filed against the order of said LPA in limine.

And, whereas, redesignation of non teaching posts has arisen on account of vagueness and flaw in the definition of 'teacher'.

And, whereas, the State Cabinet decided to rectify mistake in the light of legal opinion and the observation of the LPA court and decided to withdraw the previous decision of re-designation of Lab. Personnel as Demonstrator with effect from the date of issuance of letter of re-designation dated 14.6.2006 and its modification dated 1.8.2006 and Government resolution no. 608 dated 10.4.2012 was issued.

And, whereas, it is necessary to amend the definition of the teacher to exclude the non-teaching employee Lab. Personnel re-designated Demonstrator with effect from the date of re-designation, as UGC and Central Govt. do not recognise Demonstrator as teaching employee in the context of observation of the LPA court in LPA No. 981 of 2011 as well as Legal Advice.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the sixty third year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title and Commencement - (1) This Act may be called The Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012. Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

(2) This Act shall be deemed to come into force from the date of issue of U.G.C. Regulation, 1991 i.e. with effect from 05 October, 1991.

2. Amendment in Section-2 of the Bihar Act-23, 1976 - Clause (v) of section-2 shall be substituted by the following:-

"(v) "Teacher" means person holding the post of only University Professor/ Professor, Reader, and Lecturer and such sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time;

Provided, that notwithstanding the said substitution in Section-2(v), the action taken in respect of working Demonstrators appointed before 18-09- 1975 on the post sanctioned before 01-

01-1973 with the concurrence of Bihar Public Service Commission or Bihar State University Service Commission shall not be affected by this substitution.

3. Overriding effect of the Act

-Notwithstanding anything contained contrary in this Act or any other Act, Ordinances, Rules or decision or judgment or decree of any court the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect."

4. An amendment pari materia to the 2012

Amendment Act was effected in the Patna University Act by

the Patna University (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012,

which is extracted below:

"Patna University (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 [Bihar Act 21, 2012] Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

AN ACT To amend the Patna University Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 24, 1976) Preamble.--Whereas, it is most expedient to make the University Act consistent with and in conformity with standards of University Grants Commission (U.G.C.); And, whereas, anomalies exist in the provisions of The Patna University Act, 1976 so amendment is essential for bringing the Act on the line of different regulations/ direction/ instruction of UGC and define teacher in conformity with the definition incorporated in various regulations of UGC and orders issued by Govt. of India.

And, whereas, vide government letter no. 1216 dated 18-09-75 all the Vice- Chancellors of the State have been informed of the abolition of the post of Demonstrator in the light of UGC recommendation, decision of the State Govt. has also been communicated to the Universities that the Demonstrators appointed on the sanctioned post before 01-01- 1973 shall continue but the post shall not be filled up in case of vacancy caused due to retirement or death of the said post holders. On the post sanctioned before 01-01-1973 and appointed temporarily by 18-09-1975, such temporary demonstrators were to be examined in respect of qualification and on finding them fit for permanent appointment concurrence was to be obtained from Bihar State University Service Commission.

And, whereas, all university including Magadh University had been informed vide letter no. 1789 dated 26-08-1977 that on the recommendation of Govt. of India, the post of Demonstrator had been abolished and that no Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

appointment was to be made on such posts. In this letter, Govt. of India decision was quoted as follows:- "The revised scale of Rs. 500- 900 is for the existing Demonstrator/Tutors only. In future Demonstrator/Tutors shall not be appointed in the Universities and Colleges"¸ And, whereas, the UGC Regulation, 1991 prescribed qualification for appointment to teaching post. And, whereas, the UGC recognises only three tier teaching post namely Lecturer, Reader and Professor.

And, whereas, definition of Teacher under the Patna University Act, 1976 is not clear, due to which non teaching employees not holding the qualification of a teacher have been defined as a Teacher from the date of appointment and the question of adjustment of service of non-teaching employees appointed/ working against Unsanctioned Post on the basis of Staffing Pattern has arisen. Therefore for promotion of educational environment and for attaining academic excellence in these institutions as per the expectation of U.G.C., it is essential to amend the existing relevant provisions of The Patna University Act, 1976.

And, whereas, the Division Bench of Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in LPA No. 274/1997 (R) while partly allowing the appeal set aside the direction of the Single Judge dated 3.4.1997 in CWJC No. 2176/1996(R) to treat the Lab. Assistant as teacher.

And, whereas, the apex court while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 4215-

16/2002 dated 22.7.2002 held that the order of the Division Bench cannot be faulted with apart from the fact that no Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

such specific prayer was made. The Bench observed that such general direction could not be issued as the qualifications and other relevant facts in respect of each Lab. Assistants may have to be examined by the State Government while considering their representation. The Hon'ble apex court did not find merit in the challenge made aginst that part of the order of the Division Bench. The apex court held that Lab personnel can't be declared Teacher.

And, whereas, after the Cabinet decision letter No. 1115 dated 14.6.2006 was issued for re-designation of Lab. Personnel.

And, whereas, modification in the letter no. 1115 was made vide memo no. 1456 dated 1.8.2006 without cabinet decision. And, whereas, on 18.12.2008 the State Govt. clarified that re-

designation as Demonstrator was issued only for pay scale and allowance and not to convert them as teacher.

And, whereas, on 21.9.2010 the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1377/2010 held that re-designated Demonstrators acquired the status of teacher in terms of the definition of teacher under the Patna University Act, 1976 and as such entitled to all benefits.

And, whereas, on appeal LPA Court in LPA No. 981/2011 dated 11.7.2011 held that inspite of the decision of the Division Bench of the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government of Bihar in its wisdom took a decision on 14.6.2006, to re-designate the graduate Laboratory Assistant/Junior Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Incharge/ Lab. Technician/Technical Assistant, etc. appointed in the Laboratory of the constituent colleges as Demonstrators. Under the said decision, it was specifically decided that since re-designation as Demonstrators the concerned employees will be entitled to all the benefits of the post of Demonstrator.

And, whereas, the apex court dismissed SLP(C) No. CC-1324/2012 filed against the order of said LPA in limine. And, whereas, redesignation of non teaching posts has arisen on account of vagueness and flaw in the definition of 'teacher'. And, whereas, the State Cabinet decided to rectify mistake in the light of legal opinion and the observation of the LPA court and decided to withdraw the previous decision of re-designation of Lab.

Personnel as Demonstrator with effect from the date of issuance of letter of re- designation dated 14.6.2006 and its modification dated 1.8.2006 and Government resolution no. 608 dated 10.4.2012 was issued.

And, whereas, it is necessary to amend the definition of the teacher to exclude the non-teaching employee Lab.

Personnel re-designated Demonstrator with effect from the date of re-

designation, as UGC and Central Govt.

do not recognise Demonstrator as teaching employee in the context of observation of the LPA court in LPA No. 981 of 2011 as well as Legal Advice.

\Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the sixty third year of the Republic of India as follows :-

1. Short title and Commencement.- (1) This Act may be called The Patna University (Amendment and Validation) Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Act, 2012. (2) This Act shall be deemed to come into force from the date of issue of U.G.C. Regulation, 1991 i.e. with effect from 05 October, 1991.

2. Amendment in Section-2 of the Bihar Act-24, 1976 - clause (r) of section-2 shall be substituted by the following :- "(r) "Teacher" means person holding the post of only University Professor/ Professor, Reader, and Lecturer and such sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time; Provided, that notwithstanding the said substitution in Section-2(r), the action taken in respect of working Demonstrators appointed before 18-09-1975 on the post sanctioned before 01-01-1973 with the concurrence of Bihar Public Service Commission or Bihar State University Service Commission shall not be affected by this substitution.

3. Overriding effect of the Act.-

Notwithstanding anything contained contrary in this Act or any other Act, Ordinances, Rules or decision or judgment or decree of any court the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect."

5. Later, the Bihar State University (Amendment)

Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the '2017 Amendment

Act') was enacted:

                                 "Bihar      State    University
                     (Amendment) Act, 2017
                                 AN ACT
                                 To amend the Bihar State

University Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23, 1976) Preamble-- Whereas, it is expedient to incorporate Principals of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

colleges under the Universities of the Bihar within the definition of teachers of the University.

And, whereas, it is proper to take the services of experienced retired officers of Bihar Administrative Service to the post of Registrar in the Universities of Bihar.

Now, therefore, it is necessary to amend section 2 and section 15 of Bihar State University Act, 1976.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the Sixty eighth year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title and Commencement.--This Act may be called The Bihar State University (Amendment) Act, 2017. (2) It shall come into force at once.

2. Amendment in Section-2 of Bihar Act, 23, 1976-- The main part of section 2 (v) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23, 1976) shall be substituted by the following:- "(r) "Teacher" means person holding the post of only university Professor/Professor, Principal, Associate Professor (Reader) and Assistant Professor (Lecturer) and such sanctioned post in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time.

3. Amendment in section-16 of the Bihar Act 24, 1976.- (1) sub-section (1) of section 15 of Bihar State University Act, 1976 shall be substituted by the following :- "(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of the Act, if the Chancellor thinks fit, he may request the State Government, Central Government, University Grant Commission or any University to send names of suitable officers including the retired officers of Bihar Administrative Service for the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Registrar, and in that case State Government, Central Government, University Grant Commission or any University may send the name of one or more officers for consideration for appointment as Registrar under such terms and conditions of service, as he may consider fit, and then the Chancellor shall appoint the Registrar from amongst them.

4. Saving - Notwithstanding the amendment made in section-2 (v) and sub-section (1) of section-15 of this Act, anything done or decision or action taken prior to it shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken and shall not be questioned on the ground of amendment."

6. An amendment pari materia to the 2017

Amendment Act was also made in the Patna University Act by

the Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2017, extracted

below:

"Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2017 AN ACT To amend Patna University Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 24, 1976) Preamble-- Whereas, it is expedient to incorporate Principals of colleges under Patna University within the definition of teachers of the University.

And, whereas, it is proper to take the services of experienced retired officers of Bihar Administrative Service to the post of Registrar in Patna University. Hence, it is necessary to amend section 2 and section 16 of Patna University Act, 1976.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the Sixty eighth year of the Republic of India as Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

follows:-

1. Short title and Commencement.--This Act may be called The Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2017. (2) It shall come into force at once.

2. Amendment in Section-2 of Bihar Act, 24, 1976-- The main part of section 2 (r) of the Patna University Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 24, 1976) shall be substituted by the following:- "(r) "Teacher" means person holding the post of only university Professor/Professor, Principal, Associate Professor (Reader) and Assistant Professor (Lecturer) and such sanctioned post in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time.

3. Amendment in section-16 of the Bihar Act 24, 1976.- (1) sub-section (1) of section 16 of Patna University Act, 1976 shall be substituted by the following :- "(1) Notwithstanding any provisions of the Act, if the Chancellor thinks fit, he may request the State Government, Central Government, University Grant Commission or any University to send names of suitable officers including the retired officers of Bihar Administrative Service for the post of Registrar, and in that case State Government, Central Government, University Grant Commission or any University may send the name of one or more officers for consideration for appointment as Registrar under such terms and conditions of service, as he may consider fit, and then the Chancellor shall appoint the Registrar from amongst them.

4. Saving - Notwithstanding the amendment made in section-2 (r) and sub-section (1) of section-16 of this Act, anything done or decision or action taken prior to it shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken and shall not be Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

questioned on the ground of amendment."

7. References in this judgement hereinafter to the

2012 Amendment Act also include the Patna University

(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012. Likewise, references

hereinafter to the 2017 Amendment Act would also include the

Patna University (Amendment) Act, 2017. So also, references

hereinafter to the Act would include the Patna University Act.

8. The petitioners held, at the relevant time, the

posts of Professors/Readers when, pursuant to a formal

advertisement, they were selected and appointed as principals

in various colleges and have continued on the post much prior

to 2012 Amendment Act coming into force. However, it

appears that in the year 2017, the Section(s) in question was

further amended by the 2017 Amendment Act with effect from

18.05.2017. This was the basis for the authorities to take a plea

that the petitioners had continued wrongly as principals, even

after attaining the age of 62 years as by the 2012 Amendment

Act, they have been held to have superannuated with

retrospective effect, since the post of principal was removed

from the category of teachers. This has subsequently been

reinserted by the 2017 Amendment Act. Thus, in many cases,

including that of the petitioners', they had continued to hold Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the posts without any objection from any quarter even after

having crossed the age of 62 years being considered to be

teachers. However, after the 2017 Amendment Act, orders

holding them to have superannuated upon completion of 62

years have been issued. The said order(s) are impugned herein,

leading to the instant writ application(s).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that the 2012 Amendment Act lays out the aims and objects

which leave no confusion or ambiguity and the sole purpose

was to bring the Acts in consonance with the Regulations laid

down by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter

referred to as the 'UGC'). It was submitted that the object was

that those categories of persons who had nothing to do with

teaching were included in the definition of 'teachers' which

led to them getting benefit, which otherwise was not due to

them and in this connection, the specific focus was on the post

of 'demonstrator', as prior to the 2012 Amendment Act, a

demonstrator was included in the definition of 'teacher'.

However, it was submitted that when the ultimate and final

language of the 2012 Amendment Act was drafted, to replace

the existing definitions under Section 2(v) of the Act and

Section 2(r) of the Patna University Act, while taking away the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

term 'demonstrator', the term 'principal' was also done away

with. It was replaced by a further addition, that is, "such

sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of

regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time". Thus,

submitted learned counsel, a situation arose where the

aggrieved persons moved the High Court challenging such

amendment. The Court notes such group includes only the

demonstrators. However, their challenge did not succeed,

neither before this Court nor before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and matters attained finality.

10. It was submitted that, however, principals,

who were holding the posts at the time when the 2012

Amendment Act came, not being under any threat, either

perceived or received and no action having been taken by the

authorities, had no occasion to be aggrieved, and

consequently, did not challenge the 2012 Amendment Act.

Even by their conduct, stated learned counsel, the

State/authorities never gave any occasion for the petitioners

and/or other similarly situated persons to move before any

forum or authority with regard to them being considered

separate and distinct from teachers and not falling in the

category of teaching employee. Such situation prevailed for Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

almost five years and then by the 2017 Amendment Act,

Section 2(v) of the Act and Section 2(r) of the Patna

University Act, the term 'principal' was once again

incorporated in the definition of teachers without making any

other changes to the provision.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the so-called

mischief was created by this innocuous, superfluous and

redundant amendment for in effect it did not change either the

law or the intention or the existing position. It was merely

clarificatory in nature for the reason that even prior to the

2012 Amendment Act, when specifically, the term 'principal'

was included in the definition of teacher, the 2012 Amendment

Act merely brought it in line with the UGC Regulations,

where the principal, being a post sanctioned in the teachers

grade, already found mention. Hence, to avoid repetition or the

definition becoming superfluous, the term 'principal' was also

removed as a specific post for the reason that it stood

automatically covered as a post sanctioned in the teachers

grade in the UGC Regulations. The phrase "such sanctioned

post in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued

by the U.G.C. from time to time" was inserted by the 2012

Amendment Act. Thus, it was contended that the main thrust Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

being on the removal of the ineligible group from the

definition of teacher, being 'demonstrator' which was so done

and, as submitted earlier, gave rise to challenge, ultimately

repelled, before this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. Learned counsel submitted that such confusion could

not even have been perceived and the action of the State, in

going in for another amendment by incorporating the word

'principal' was unnecessary, or at best, clarificatory but would

not lead to the consequences that what is or was the position in

law would change. It was advanced by learned counsel that

from the beginning, the post of principal was restricted only to

the senior-most teaching post of Professor and Reader which

formed the minimum eligibility criteria. It was submitted that

a conjoint reading of Section 2(r) with Section 7 of the Patna

University Act would clarify the matter beyond any doubt that

the principal is also a teacher, as held by the learned Third

Judge of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna Devi v. State of

Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 965, after a divergence of views

amongst 2 learned Judges of a Division Bench.

12. Learned counsel submitted that eligibility for

a post is directly relatable to the position for which the person

is applying for or being considered for. It was submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

there must be a direct nexus to the object sought to be

achieved and the provision for the purpose. In the case at

hand, when the basic requirement of eligibility to apply for the

post of principal is that a person should be either in the scale

of Professor or Reader, the obvious and natural import would

be that the post would come under the broader umbrella of

'teacher' and cannot be looked at dehors the post of a teacher

itself. Learned counsel submitted that even after becoming a

principal of a college, the UGC Regulations as well as the

Acts, do not debar the principal from engaging classes which

are recognized for such purposes as proper academic classes,

and not merely considered as extra-tutorial classes. Learned

counsel submitted that apart from the above, the principals are

also performing the role of guides for students pursuing their

M.Phil and Ph.D. courses which have been duly approved and

recognized under the relevant Statutes.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the 2012

Amendment Act was, in essence, brought about to remove

the ambiguity in 'teacher' as defined under the Act, due to

which non-teaching employees not holding qualification of

teacher had been included, from the date of appointment

within 'teacher' and the question arose of adjustment of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

service of non-teaching employees appointed/working

against unsanctioned posts on the basis of the then Staffing

Pattern. As such, learned counsel urged, that for promotion

of educational environment and for attaining academic

excellence in these institutions as per the expectations of

UGC, it was deemed essential to amend the existing relevant

provisions of the Act so as to bring it in sync with the UGC

Regulations.

14. Learned counsel submitted that the above

would be manifest from a bare perusal of the Preamble to

the 2012 Amendment Act which clearly sets out the intention

of the Legislature, which is confined qua the earlier

inclusion of class of Demonstrators and Lab Assistants as

teaching staff notwithstanding that Demonstrators and Lab

Assistants did not possess the qualification of a teacher and

the UGC did not recognize them as teachers. The seventh

Paragraph of the preamble, which reads as under is a clear

testimony to this, contended learned counsel:

"And, whereas, definition of Teacher under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 is not clear, due to which non teaching employees not holding the qualification of a teacher have been defined as a Teacher..."

15. As such the 2012 Amendment Act, when Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

seen in light of the Objects and Reasons thereof the

Amendment Act and applying the 'Mischief Rule' of

interpretation, it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose

of the Amendment was to exclude from 'teacher', non-

teaching staff like lab personnel and demonstrators, who

did not qualify as teachers under the UGC Regulations and

did not possess the educational qualification to be so appointed.

Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v

Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175, specifically on

paragraphs 14-15.

16. Further, learned counsel stated that a bare

glance at Section 2(v) of the Act, as amended by the 2012

Amendment Act, reveals that inclusive definition has been

replaced by an exhaustive definition by use of 'means'. It was

submitted that the word 'principal' has been, though, deleted

from the illustrative list of the hierarchy of teachers, a

completely new class has been inserted by the phrase "such

sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of

regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time."

Learned counsel submitted that this second class/category,

in the definition of 'teacher', added by the 2012 Amendment

Act categorically provides for inclusion of principals in the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

definition of teacher and, in fact, is a much broader

classification. Therefore, 'principal' while being deleted

from the opening part, has been included in the second part

and the same, when read with the Preamble, which only

was intended to exclude the class of demonstrators and lab

assistants on account of their being non-teaching staff and

did not possess even the minimum qualification for being

appointed as teachers.

17. Learned counsel countered the

Respondents' contention that the second part of the

definition is superfluous and redundant and only meant for

some future use or application, as being against the settled

canons of interpretation. Although on one hand, it is not

permissible to add words or to fill in a gap or lacuna, on the

other hand, every effort should be made to give meaning to

each and every word used by the Legislature. It was held,

stated learned counsel, in Aswini Kumar Ghosh v Arabinda

Bose, AIR 1952 SC 369 that it is not a sound principle of

construction to brush aside words in a statute as being

inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate

application in circumstances conceivably within the

contemplation of the statute. It is incumbent to avoid a Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

construction, if reasonably permissible on the language,

which would render a part of the statute devoid of any

meaning/application. While interpreting statutes, it is always

to be presumed that the Legislature inserted every part

thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that

every part of the statute should have effect. The Legislature

is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain

and a construction which attributes redundancy to the

Legislature will not be accepted, except for compelling

reasons.

18. Learned counsel further submitted that this

is even more evident from a reading of the proviso to the

amended provision, which is in the nature of a saving

clause in respect of the status of such demonstrators as

teachers, who were appointed before 18.09.1975 on the

post sanctioned before 01.01.1973 with the concurrence of the

Bihar Public Service Commission or the Bihar State University

Service Commission. It was submitted that Section 2(am) of

the Act which defines equivalent post when read with

Section 10(14) would make it abundantly plain and clear

that the posts of principals are in the teachers' grade of

Professors and Readers (or Associate Professors). Learned Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

counsel canvassed that it is admittedly undisputed the post

of principal is a sanctioned post, and in the teachers' grade

viz. the grade of Professor or Associate Professor (Reader).

19. Learned counsel next submitted that the UGC,

as an expert body, has been entrusted with the duty to take steps

as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of

standards of teaching, examination and research in the

Universities. He emphasised that the UGC makes no distinction

between teachers and principals working in the colleges as

teaching staff. Learned counsel submitted that the University

Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'UGC Act') was enacted by the Parliament in exercise

of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh

Schedule to the Constitution of India while the Act was

enacted by the State Legislature of Bihar exercising powers

under Entry 25 of List III thereof and as such, the

provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities

notwithstanding any repugnancy contained in the state

enactment as held in Annamalai University v Secretary to

Government, Information & Tourism Department, (2009)

4 SCC 590. Learned counsel further submitted that

Annamalai University (supra) held that the powers of the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

UGC under Section 26(1)(e), UGC Act are of wide amplitude

and form part of the Act itself. It was submitted that Section

26, UGC Act empowers the UGC to make Regulations.

Under Section 26(1)(e), UGC Act, the UGC is empowered

to make Regulations defining the qualifications that should

ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the

teaching staff of a University, while under Clause (g), it

can frame Regulations for the maintenance of standard and

the co-ordination of work/facilities in the universities.

Exercising such powers under Section 26(1)(e) & (g), the

UGC has framed the University Grants Commission

(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and

Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and

Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher

Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as

the '2010 UGC Regulations'). These Regulations provide

for minimum qualification for direct recruitment of

teachers in Clause 4, and minimum qualification required

for principal in Clause 4.2.0.

20. Learned counsel submitted that the

provisions of the 2010 UGC Regulations including the

requirement of teaching experience is conclusive that the UGC Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

regards principals as teachers and, in any view of the matter, as

teaching staff of the college/university and does not distinguish

between principals and teachers. Learned counsel submitted

that the 2010 UGC Regulations provide for pay-scale based on

posts held while discharging duties in the University on

different posts viz. Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant

Professors, Readers and Lecturers and such sanctioned

posts in the teachers' grade on the basis of the Regulations

issued by the UGC and it is for this reason, the pay-scales

of the principals of Under-Graduate and Post-Graduate

Colleges have been directed to be fixed by the concerned

university based on the eligibility in respect of educational

qualifications and teaching/research experiences earned

during their service. Appendix I to the 2010 UGC Regulations

which is a Scheme for Revision of Pay of Teachers and

Equivalent Cadres in Universities and Colleges (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Scheme') clearly provide for the pay scale of

principals in the same pay bands as teachers, apparent from

Clause 1(iii) read with Clause 4. Furthermore, submitted

learned counsel, principals, just like Professors and Readers,

are entitled to Academic Grade Pay, which is admissible to

teachers alone. As such Clauses 1 & 4 of Appendix I, read in Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

conjunction with Section 2(am) of the Act, defining equivalent

posts, would leave no manner of doubt that the post of Principal

is one of a teacher or, alternatively, is a post in the teacher's

grade. Clause 8(f) of the Scheme enhances the age of

superannuation of teachers from 62 years to 65 years. Clause

8(p) of the Scheme delineates the applicability of the

scheme and in sub-clauses (ii), (iii) & (iv) thereof only

excludes the class of Registrar, Finance Officer and

Controller of Examinations, Accompanists, Coaches,

Tutors, Demonstrators, System Analysts, Senior Analysts,

Research Officers, etc.

21. Learned counsel submitted that the

aforesaid Scheme, as contained in Appendix I has been

adopted by the State Government in toto, pursuant to which

the State Government has even accepted grants from the

UGC and made payments under the head of teaching posts to

Principals even after the 2012 Amendment Act, as also manifest

from the Budget of the Magadh University brought on record

vide Annexure 12, Pgs. 76-93. The UGC through Memo No.

2/2/15 dated 13.08.2015 has mandated that supervision of

research work for award of M.Phil./Ph.D. can only be

undertaken by regular teachers of the Universities in terms of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

its 2009 Regulations. The petitioners claim to have

supervised research works of a number of scholars, who have

been awarded Ph.D. on the basis of theses prepared under the

supervision of the petitioners. A chart showing the list of

such research scholars under the supervision of Petitioner

No. 3 [Annexure 15, Pgs. 99-100; Annexure 16, Pg. 101] has

been shown to the Court.

22. Learned counsel submitted that it is a settled

proposition that a definition section does not control the

substantive provisions of the Act, which is also made clear

by the very opening words of Section 2 of the Act, which

state "In the Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the

subject or context". As such, the definition section of an

Act is subservient to the substantive provisions of the Act.

In the instant case, learned counsel stated that if the

intention of the Legislature was to exclude the post of

principals from the definition of 'teacher' by the 2012

Amendment Act, corresponding amendments would have

been made in the substantive provisions of the Act to save

the same from being rendered absurd and/or unworkable.

The above position would be manifest from a bare perusal

of the substantive provisions of the Act, which have been, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

inter alia, left untouched by the 2012 Amendment Act:

22.1. The statutory scheme of the Act including

the Statutes framed thereunder, which are still in force post

the 2012 Amendment Act, would reveal that Principals are

still appointed on sanctioned posts which are either in

Professor/Reader grade and in terms of Section 2(am) of the

Act, equivalent to that of a 'teacher'.

22.2. Section 57 of the Act provides for

constitution of Selection Committee for appointment to the

post of teachers and officers, other than Vice-Chancellor,

Pro Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Dean of faculty) of the

University, while Section 57A provides for constitution of

Selection Committee for appointment of teachers of

affiliated colleges not maintained by the State Government

and the latter includes Principal of the College as one of

the Members of the Selection Committee.

22.3. Section 57B of the Act mandates that

notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Selection

Committee constituted under Sections 57 and 57 A of the

Act shall be bound by the procedure of selection to be

prescribed by Statute to be framed by the University in

accordance with procedure prescribed under the Act.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Accordingly, a Revised Statute for prescribing qualification and

procedure for selection of teachers and officers of the

Universities of Bihar as contemplated under Section 57B of the

Act was framed on 30.06.2008. (Part II, University Manual, Pg.

313). Perusal of Clause 7 of the said Statute reveals, per learned

counsel, that Principals are to be appointed either in Professor

grade or in the Reader grade. The same is also evident from

the undisputed fact that the pay scales of post of Principals

either in Professor/Reader grade is the same as that of the

posts of Professor/Reader.

22.4. Furthermore, the selection committee is to

comprise of three experts, who have to be of the rank of

University Professor and at least one shall be the

VC/Former VC/Director/Principal of a constituent college.

As such, the post of Principal being a sanctioned post and

falling in the rank/grade of a Professor/Reader is clearly

covered under the substituted definition of 'teacher',

brought about by the 2012 Amendment Act.

22.5. Section 7 of the Act defines Officers of

the Universities. Under Section 9(7)(i) of the Act, the

Chancellor of a University has been invested with powers

to transfer officers and teachers of the Universities from Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

one university to another or in the same university on the

same post or on any other equivalent post, while retaining

their seniority. If the contention of the Respondents is

accepted, submitted learned counsel, then post the 2012

Amendment Act, the Principal, being neither a teacher nor

an officer of the University, even the Chancellor would be

powerless to transfer him/her.

22.6. Similarly, Section 10(14) of the Act

empowers the Vice-Chancellor to transfer any teacher of any

department/college to another department/college on

equivalent post in terms of approved guidelines of Chancellor.

The Illustration to this Section clearly provides that

'equivalent post' means Reader and Principal in the pay-scale

of Reader, Professor and Principal in the pay-scale of

Professor.

22.7. A perusal of Sections 14 and 26 of the Act,

would also indicate that the post of Principal is that of a teacher

even post the 2012 Amendment Act. Section 14(1) provides

that the Dean of Students' Welfare shall be appointed from

amongst the University Professors, Readers or Principals,

Section 14(3) uses the term 'teacher', while providing that

the "teacher appointed as Dean, Students' Welfare under Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

sub section (1) shall hold lien on his original post, and he shall

be eligible for all the benefits which would have otherwise

accrued to him...".

23. Developing the argument, learned counsel

submitted that, similarly, Section 26(5)(i)(a) provides for

Dean of faculty, who has to be

appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the

University Professors and the Principals of the rank of

University Professors. Sub-clause (b) thereof mandates that

for appointment as Dean of the Faculty, it would be

necessary for the person concerned to be a teacher in the

faculty. A conjoint reading of sub-clauses (a) & (b) of

Section 26(5)(i) and Section 14(1) & 14(3) reveals that the

post of principal is that of a teacher, contended learned

counsel.

24. Learned counsel submitted that the

contention that, in terms of the 2012 Amendment Act, a

person upon being appointed as a Principal, becomes non-

teaching staff of the university, would lead to a situation not

envisaged by the Legislature, inasmuch as all such

University Professors and Readers, who are otherwise

eligible to hold the posts of Principal would be barred from Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

applying for the post if they have crossed the age of 62

years, which is not a criterion stipulated by the UGC while

fixing the qualification for appointment as Principal.

Learned counsel added that similarly, a Principal of a

college, who is essentially of the grade of a University

Professor or Reader, may during his tenure be transferred

and reverted to the post of a Professor or Reader in another

college. Learned counsel submitted that as per the

interpretation being accorded to the 2012 Amendment Act

by the Respondents, the age of superannuation of the

concerned person(s) would keep vacillating between 62

years and 65 years, on the basis of the post held.

25. Learned counsel pointed out that there exist

several instances of Principals, upon transfer, being posted

as Professors/Readers in the college/s to which transferred.

Illustratively, (a) Dr. Umesh Mishra, who was Principal,

Magadh Mahila College, Patna under the Patna University,

was transferred as University Professor to the Post Graduate

Department of Applied Economics & Commerce, Patna

University vide Memo No. 979/R dated 11.05.2015, and; (b)

Dr. Dolly Sinha, Principal, Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna

was transferred as University Professor in the Post Graduate Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Department of Physics, Patna University vide Memo No.

980/R dated 11.05.2015. It was submitted that if the post of

Principal is treated as a non-teaching post, no Professor or

Reader, otherwise eligible for being appointed as Principal,

would apply for appointment as Principal and thereby,

voluntarily lose out on three years of active service with full

salary and emoluments.

26. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the

directions issued by the office of the Hon'ble Chancellor, the

Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University vide Letter No. 176/G1A

dated 08.05.2013 had directed Principals of all colleges to

provide their details in the prescribed format for

determination of seniority in matter of their appointment as

Dean of Faculties. Accordingly, the Petitioner No. 3 by

letter dated 24.05.2013 submitted his details to the Vice-

Chancellor, pursuant whereto he, while posted as Principal,

College of Commerce, Patna was appointed Dean, Faculty

of Law, Magadh University through Memo No. 31/98-

389/G1A dated 15.09.2014.

27. Further, it was urged that not only the

Universities covered by the Act, the Patna University Act and

under the State Government, but the Ministry of Human Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Resource Development (in praesenti renamed as the

Ministry of Education), Government of India also treats

Principals as a teaching post, as evincible from letter dated

26.08.2010 of the Director, Ministry of HRD, Government

of India written to the UGC, New Delhi wherein in lieu of

the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, the pay

of Principal has been revised as that of a teacher.

Accordingly, budgetary allocations for payment of

Principals' salaries is made under the budgetary allotment

for teaching posts as can be evinced from the proposed

Budget prepared by the Magadh University for Financial

Year 2016-2017. Perusal thereof the same would reveal that

the post of Principal has been accounted for in the

sanctioned posts for teachers and budgetary allocations

have also been made under the head for Teachers. Pursuant

to the Budget being approved, funds have been released by

Memo No. 274 dated 26.02.17 by the Director, Higher

Education, Government of Bihar in favour of the Principals.

The State Government, it was stated, has been releasing funds

on the basis of such audits treating Principals as teachers even

post the 2012 Amendment Act and never, previously, objected.

The Ministry of Human Resources Development, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Government of India started a web-based All India Survey

on Higher Education (hereinafter referred to as 'AISHE')

since 2010-2011, which covers all institutions in the

country engaged in imparting higher education, where data

is collected on several parameters such as teachers,

student enrolment, programmes, examination results,

education finance, and infrastructure. Under the AISHE

the Colleges are required to submit the details with regard

to the infrastructure etc. vide DCF Form I, while the

details with regard to teaching posts are submitted through

DCF Form II, which includes the post of Principal in the

college. Pursuant to letter dated 15.02.2017 by the

Department of Education, Government of Bihar, the Vice-

Chancellor, Magadh University by Memo No. 2 1 / 1 7 dated

07.04.2017 directed the Principals of all colleges to

upload all data pertaining to DCF Form II by 13.04.2017.

The said details were uploaded on 13.04.2017, including

the post of Principal alongwith other teaching posts.

28. Wrapping up, learned counsel stated that

principals, apart from carrying out other administrative and

supervisory functions also take routine/regular classes in the

colleges and are mandated to do so as evident from the Magadh Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

University Resolution dated 08.09.2010 passed in a meeting of

all the Principals of the constituent colleges of the University. It

was advanced that the principals have continued to take classes

even after the 2012 Amendment Act.

29. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General

appearing for the State, opposed the writ petitions. He

submitted that the petitioners' stand was misconceived. He

submitted that the petitioner cannot succeed without

challenging the 2017 Amendment Act, as only by such

amendment, the term 'principal' has been incorporated in the

definition of teacher and the same had been deliberately taken

out from the definition of the teacher in the year 2012, there

cannot be any ambiguity as to the intention of the Legislature

which in its wisdom has taken a conscious decision to bring

out of the definition of 'teacher', both the posts, of 'principal'

as well as demonstrator. He submitted that once the cause or

the grievance of the petitioners cannot be gone into without

considering the validity and vires of the 2017 Amendment Act,

the instant batch of writ petitions cannot be adjudicated before

a Single Bench as the same has to be placed before a Division

Bench in terms of the roster of cases allocated by the Hon'ble

the Chief Justice.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

30. He submitted that on the 2012 Amendment

Act, when the language of the statute is clear and

unambiguous, the Court would not be required to go into any

reading down or purposive interpretation, which course is

open only where either the language is unclear or which leads

to various discrepancies in balancing the overall provisions of

the statute. It was submitted that in the present case, if the post

of 'principal' is removed from the category of teachers, there

will be no disturbance to the general provisions of the Acts

and 'principal' coming out from the teaching category to non-

teaching category would not lead to a situation where the

Court would be called upon to clarify or give any

interpretation, other than what is clear and apparent in black

and white from the language itself. It was further submitted

that the Court need not unnecessarily labour with the issue for

the reason that the 2012 Amendment Act was subject-matter of

a writ petition before this Court and the vires thereof had been

upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He exhorted the Court

not to go into the exercise of dissecting a portion of the Acts

for the purposes of holding that only the removal of the post of

'demonstrator' from 'teacher' has been upheld whereas the

post of 'principal' is still open to another interpretation by the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Court. It was further submitted that 'principal' is not a

sanctioned post in the teacher's grade. He submitted that the

post of 'principal' is a separate post and a separate cadre,

which cannot be said to be either complementary to or

inclusive in the broad cadre of teachers. Canvassing this

proposition, the learned Advocate General relied upon

decisions of the Privy Council in the case of D. R. Fraser &

Co. v Revenue Minister, AIR (36) 1949 PC 120, the relevant

being at paragraph no. 11; W. I. Theatres v Municipal

Corporation, Poona, AIR 1959 SC 586, the relevant being at

paragraph no. 6, and; State of UP v Malik Zarid Khalid,

(1988) 1 SCC 145, the relevant being at paragraph no. 10.

31. Learned counsel for the UGC submitted that,

as of now, there is no clear-cut statutory provision which may

put the post of 'principal' in any specific and straight jacket

definition of a teacher or a non-teacher. It was submitted that

till now, the UGC has never taken a stand or has considered

the post of principal not to come under the category of

'teacher'. He submitted that for all practical purposes and as

far as the UGC was concerned, principal would be deemed to

be the post under the broad definition of a teacher, subject to

the actual responsibilities and manner and mode of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

appointment which may be distinct vis-à-vis other purely

teaching staff. By way of analogy, he submitted that as the

sphere of intervention and power of the UGC is restricted to

the academic functioning of the higher educational

institutions, all Regulations made by it, pertain to the

academic domain, including teachers and staff with regard,

covering the post of principal also. By adoption and/or by

implication of the Regulations framed by the UGC, the post of

principal would be included as an academic teaching post.

32. He stated that as the qualification for

appointment as principal is mentioned in the UGC

Regulations, such post becomes an academic/teaching post.

Learned counsel submitted that by way of further clarification,

the UGC is not empowered to make any regulation for non-

teaching staff/employees, and therefore, the Regulations,

including the provisions relating to the post of principal would

indicate that the post of principal comes under the teaching

grade.

33. Learned counsel for the Hon'ble Chancellor

submitted that he would be adopting the arguments of learned

Advocate General. However, he submitted that the UGC

Regulations are not mandatorily and automatically applicable Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

to the State as the same have to be adopted and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had clarified that especially in matters relating

to age of superannuation, it would be the concerned State

which had to take a call.

34. Learned counsel on behalf of the Intervenors

submitted that the writ petitions are misconceived. It was

submitted that the petitioners had challenged the Notification

of the Education Department, Government of Bihar contained

in Memo No. 1703 dated 20.09.2017, by which the Registrars

of the petitioners' universities, including Magadh University,

had been communicated that all those principals who have

attained 65 years of age will retire as they were no more

teachers and in view of the 2017 Amendment Act, 'principal'

in the definition of 'teacher', has been brought back, but has

come into force with prospective effect and, thus, the

petitioners who had attained the age of 62 years prior to the

2017 Amendment Act, shall be considered to have

superannuated. It was advanced that prior to 27.12.2012,

before the 2012 Amendment Act, the terms 'principal' and

'demonstrator' were included, but in the redefined Section

2(v) of the Act, have been deliberately left out and 'principal',

thus, goes out of the scope of being considered 'teacher' for Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the purposes of the Act. It was submitted that Section 2(m) of

the Act defines Principal as head of a college and Lecturer,

Reader and Professor are separately defined in Sections 2(s),

2(r) and 2(o) of the Act.

35. In exercise of power conferred by Section

26(1)(e) of the UGC Act, the University Grants Commission

(Qualifications Required of a Person to be Appointed to be

Teaching Staff of the University and Institution Affiliated to

it), Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the '1991

UGC Regulations') came into effect from 05.10.1991. The

1991 UGC Regulations defined only three types of

teachers viz. Lecturer, Reader and Professor and did not

include Principal as teaching staff of the university. Further,

submitted learned counsel, Section 57 of the Act was amended

and was substituted by the Bihar State Universities

(Amendment) Act, 2007 where provision was made that

appointment to the posts of teachers and officers of the

University shall be made by the University on

recommendations of the concerned University's Selection

Committee. In terms thereof, a revised Statute dated

30.06.2008 was framed prescribing the procedure of selection.

Later, in 2010, exercising power under Section 26(1)(e) and Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

(g) of the UGC Act, the UGC came out with the 2010 UGC

Regulations on 30.06.2010, made effective from 18.09.2010,

upon publication in the Gazette. Learned counsel submitted

that the 2010 UGC Regulations also recognised only three

categories as teachers in universities viz. Assistant Professors,

Associate Professors and Professors. Learned counsel urged

that the Court would take note of the fact that apart from the

university's teaching staff, Principal, Registrar, Laboratory and

Physical Education Personnel at various levels were also

included in the 2010 UGC Regulations under 'Other Academic

Staff in the Universities and Colleges' as the 2010 UGC

Regulations were framed under Section 26(1)(e) and (g) of the

UGC Act. It was, thus contended, that the petitioners' stand

that the expression 'teaching staff of the university' in Section

26(1)(e) of the UGC Act, includes principals, is not tenable.

36. Learned counsel submitted that as a

consequence thereof, to remove the anomalies in the definition

of 'teacher' and to bring the Acts in consonance with the UGC

Act and the Regulations framed thereunder from time to time,

Section 2(v) of the Act was substituted by a new definition of

'teacher' by the 2012 Amendment Act. A striking feature of

the 2012 Amendment Act, per learned counsel, was that it was Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

made operative with retrospective effect from 05.10.1991,

which is also the day the 1991 UGC Regulations came into

operation. The deliberate omission of 'principal' and

'demonstrator' was a conscious exercise of the Legislature

which had to be given due weightage. Further, after the 2012

Amendment Act, Section 57 of the Act was again amended by

the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Amendment Act')

providing for appointment of teachers on the recommendation

of the Bihar Public Service Commission. However,

appointments of Principals and Officers was left to be made by

the internal Selection Committee, clearly indicating that they

were distinct from the teaching staff of the universities and

colleges.

37. Learned counsel submitted that the validity of

the 2012 Amendment Act was challenged in various writ

petitions by Demonstrators in this Court which was negated by

the Division Bench, dismissing all such applications on the

grounds that neither the impugned enactment was void for

want of legislative intent, nor was it arbitrary and

discriminatory, and also was not a colourable legislation. In

this connection, learned counsel drew the Court's attention to Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court

in Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha v State of Bihar 2014 (2)

PLJR 798, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 12, 15, 24, 33

and 34. He referred specifically to the portion of the

judgement that reads:

"Thus it is apparent that apart from the aforesaid three categories of Professor, Reader and Lecturer, other cadres in a Uni- versity or affiliated institutions are not re- cognized as teaching posts under the UGC Act and the UGC Regulations."

38. Learned counsel submitted that

Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha (supra) was taken to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, but not interfered with. Learned

counsel submitted also that no principal of any college

university in Bihar had challenged the 2012 Amendment Act

which deleted 'principal' from the definition of 'teacher'. It

was contended that Section 67 of the Act mentions that the

date of retirement of a teaching employee of the university or

college shall be the date on which he attains the age of 62

years and further, the date of retirement of a teaching

employee will be the same which would be decided by the

UGC in future. It was submitted that the Section further

stipulates that the date of retirement of retirement of non-

teaching employees (other than the inferior servants) shall be Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the date on which they attain the age of 62 years and also that

the University shall, in no case, extend the period of any of the

teaching or non-teaching employees, after the age of 62 years,

as the case may be. Later, in the year 2011, considering the

acute shortage of teachers, the age of teaching employees only

was enhanced from 62 to 65, years but a corresponding change

was not made with regard to non-teaching employees.

39. Learned counsel advanced that the intervenor had

filed CWJC No.2250 of 2017 (part of the current batch) seeking

the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Dr. Baban Singh,

who was holding the post of Principal, College of Commerce,

Art and Science, Patna under Magadh University as he was il-

legally continuing on the said post after crossing the age of 62

years. Learned counsel informed that on 02.03.2017, the Court

issued notice to Dr. Singh and observed that the pendency of the

case would not come in the way of either the State authorities or

Magadh University in proceeding in any manner in accordance

with law. He submitted that in CWJC No. 2250 of 2017, the

State has filed an affidavit taking a categorical stand that after

the 2012 Amendment Act, principals have come under the cat-

egory of non-teaching staff of the university and hence shall re-

tire upon attaining the age of 62 years. The State, again by the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

2017 Amendment Act, has included 'principal' in the definition

of 'teacher' in Section 2(v) of the Act. It was contended that

though 'principal' has been brought into the definition of

'teacher', but the same is prospective with effect from

18.05.2017 after publication in the Gazette and the 2017

Amendment Act did not operate retrospectively.

40. Learned counsel further advanced that the State

had enacted the Bihar State University Service Commission Act,

2017 for selecting teachers but the same did not include prin-

cipal. In view of the guidelines sought by the Registrar, Magadh

University from the State Government regarding age of superan-

nuation of college principals, the Education Department, Gov-

ernment of Bihar took a stand that all principals would retire on

the day they attain 62 years of age. Learned counsel submitted

that the impugned Notifications are the result of such stand of

the State Government. It was urged that the petitioners' conten-

tion that principals stand included in the latter portion of Section

2(v) of the Act after the 2012 Amendment Act, and would come

under "such sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis

of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time" is unten-

able as such sanctioned post means Lecturer (Senior Scale), As-

sistant Professor, Associate Professor etc. which are recognised Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

as teacher by the UGC. By way of explanation, learned counsel

submitted that if principal was included in such definition even

after the 2012 Amendment Act, the State would not have come

out with the 2017 Amendment, specifically for including 'prin-

cipal'. Just equivalence of the pay-scales of Professor and Prin-

cipal would not, in the eyes of law, automatically place principal

as equivalent to teacher as such equivalence is not the only

factor to judge whether posts of Principal and Professors/Read-

ers stand included in the category of teachers. Per learned coun-

sel, the test would be as to whether they were of equal status and

responsibility. For such proposition, learned counsel relied upon

Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v Dayanand

Jha, AIR 1986 SC 1200, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 7-

8, wherein it has been held that the criteria for equivalence is the

status, nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the

posts. It was submitted that though the posts of Principal and

Reader are in the same pay-scale, the post of Principal un-

doubtedly has higher duties and responsibilities. He urged that

the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that

Professor/Reader is equivalent to Principal under Section 10(14)

of the Act cannot be accepted.

41. On the question of interpretation, learned counsel Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

submitted that the cardinal principle of construction is, when

plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to the words

used in the statute and it would not be open to the Courts to ad-

opt a hypothetical construction on the ground that such con-

struction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of

the Act. For such proposition, he relied upon Union of India

v Hansoli Devi, (2002) 7 SCC 273, the relevant being at para-

graph no. 9.

42. Learned counsel submitted that where the lan-

guage of an Act is clear and exclusive, the Court must give ef-

fect to it, whatever be the consequences, for the words reflect

the intention of the Legislature. For such proposition, he relied

upon Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma v State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1)

SCC 192, the relevant being at paragraph no. 5. Learned coun-

sel further submitted that, similarly, in Nathi Devi v Radha

Devi Gupta, (2005) 2 SCC 271, the relevant being at paragraphs

no. 13-18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the inter-

pretative function of the Court is to discover the true legislative

intent and when the words are clear, plain, unambiguous and

reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts must

give that meaning irrespective of the consequences, as the

Courts are not concerned with the policy involved, whether the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

results are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving

effect to the language used.

43. Further, he contended that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that efforts should be made to give effect to each

and every word used by the Legislature, as the Courts always

presume that they were inserted for the purpose and the legislat-

ive intention is that every part of a statute should have effect and

any construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature

should not be accepted except for compelling reasons such as

obvious drafting errors. It was, submitted learned counsel, also

held that even if some ambiguity exists in the language and the

same is capable of two interpretations, the interpretation which

serves the object and purpose of the Act must be given effect to

by adopting the Doctrine of Purposive Construction. Learned

counsel submitted that in view of this standpoint of law, the pe-

titioners' stand that 'principal' being subsequently reintroduced

by the 2017 Amendment Act, was only clarificatory in nature

cannot be accepted. Moreover, it was held that it was not per-

missible to add or subtract what is not there unless a literal con-

struction being given to a part of the statute becomes meaning-

less.

44. Learned counsel submitted that under the Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Principals are appointed substantively on permanent post and

they continue on the said post till their retirement and the policy

of reservation and roster is strictly followed in such appoint-

ment. He submitted that after appointment, they are on proba-

tion for a period of two years and then, their service is con-

firmed in the cadre of Principal whereas the 2010 UGC Regula-

tions do not recognise a permanent Principal as the term of ap-

pointment of Principal under the 2010 UGC Regulations is re-

stricted to five years, after which he reverts back to the aca-

demic post of teacher, having retained his lien on the post during

tenure as Principal. In the present scenario, the moment the ten-

ure exceeds five years, the lien will lapse automatically and,

thus, a principal cannot come back to the academic post of

teacher to continue till the enhanced age of superannuation per-

missible to the post of teacher. Learned counsel submitted that

the position with regard to the Principal's post being a tenure

post of five years has also been clarified by the UGC vide Public

Notice dated 17.05.2017 and that the person retains his/her lien

in the parent college/university as per the extant Central/State

Government rules. It was urged that the 2010 UGC Regulations

have not been adopted in context of making the post of principal

a tenure post in Bihar by the State Government. By way of illus-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

tration, Clause 12.0 of the 2010 UGC Regulations talks of the

creation and filling-up of teaching post, followed by Clause 12.1

which says that teaching post in the universities may, as far as

feasible, be created in a premeditated order i.e., for instance, for

one post of Professor, there shall be two posts of Associate Pro-

fessors and four posts of Assistant Professors per Department.

Thus, it was submitted that, even here, the 2010 UGC Regula-

tions do not indicate that principal is a teaching post.

45. Learned counsel submitted that the intervenor

along with two other teachers has also challenged the validity of

the 2017 Amendment Act in CWJCs No. 16994 of 2017 and

17133 of 2017, on the ground that the same conflict with the

2010 UGC Regulations, which, they contend. is a central legis-

lation. Thus, as ultimately all these issues relate to the vires and

validity of the 2012 Amendment Act vis-à-vis the 2017 Amend-

ment Act and the 2010 UGC Regulations, they would require to

be heard by a Division Bench.

46. It is noted that, on date, CWJC Nos. 16994 of

2017 are pending before a learned Division Bench of this Court.

47. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners sub-

mitted that the contention that the word 'principal' has been ex-

pressly deleted and, thus, has to be given effect to, in a literal Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

sense, is misconceived as the Legislature, keeping in view the

clear provision of the amended Section 2(v) of the Act read with

the Preamble to the 2012 Amendment Act has only picked out

'principal' and included it in the expression "such sanctioned

posts in the teacher's grade...". It was advanced that this clearly

shows that a broader class of persons come within the definition

of teacher, which would include the likes of Principal, Dean etc.

Admittedly, urged learned counsel, Deans are also teachers and

once the same also do not specifically find place in the defini-

tion of teachers but still, without controversy, remain in the cat-

egory of teachers, by the same analogy, 'principal' not being

specifically mentioned would need to be necessarily read into

the addition made by the 2012 Amendment Act in light of the

pointed expression "such sanctioned posts in the teacher's

grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time

to time". Learned counsel advanced that, in fact, the ultimate im-

port of the judgements cited by learned counsel for the Interven-

ors viz. Nathi Devi (supra), Hansoli Devi (supra)

and Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (supra) support the petitioners

rather than the intervenors for the reason that each and every

word of the legislation is to be given effect to as they have been

inserted for a purpose and the Court while interpreting a provi-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

sion cannot add or subtract words.

48. Additionally, learned counsel stated that the

above-referred decisions also stipulate that the intention of the

Legislature must be found out from the Scheme of the Act, that

is, by reading the entire Act as a whole, and further, that an in-

terpretation which renders a particular provision redundant or

otiose should be avoided and construction should be avoided.

Construction to brush it aside, or treat it as surplusage also is to

be avoided. He drew this Court's attention to paragraphs no. 14,

16 and 18 of the Constitution Bench judgement in Nathi

Devi (supra) to submit that the stand of the Respondents to

completely ignore the second category of posts to be included in

the definition by the expression "persons holding such sanc-

tioned posts in the teacher's grade" would render it otiose,

which is impermissible.

49. It was advanced that the Legislature's intention is

clear, both from the Preamble to the 2012 Amendment Act, and

also from the words used viz. a person must be holding a sanc-

tioned post, and such sanctioned post must be in the teacher's

grade on the basis of the UGC Regulations holding the field. If

the twin conditions stood fulfilled, such category of post would

get included in the amended definition of 'teacher' in Section Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

2(v) of the Act. Here, learned counsel stated that the Court

should take special note that the proviso to Section 2(v), after

the 2012 Amendment Act, which would show that protection

was accorded to Demonstrators appointed prior to 18.09.1975

on posts sanctioned before 01.01.1973, but such protection was

not accorded to any other category, including Principals, indicat-

ing there was no intention of 'principal' not being within

'teacher' by the Legislature when enacting the 2012 Amendment

Act.

50. Learned counsel advanced that from the recital in

the Preamble to the 2012 Amendment Act, the intention of the

Legislature is disclosed as reasons have been assigned for the

same which leave no ambiguity inter alia to conclude that

Demonstrators and Lab Assistants were intentionally and delib-

erately excluded for not possessing the minimum qualification

to be appointed teachers. The reason behind the 2012 Amend-

ment Act was to ensure that persons lacking minimum qualifica-

tion to be retained in the category of teachers do not get the be-

nefit by being included in 'teacher' in the Act. The specific ob-

ject being exclusion of Demonstrators and Lab Assistants,

coupled with the expression "such sanctioned posts in the

teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

from time to time" covering principals makes the position of

principals being teachers clear. He further contended that the

provisions of the Act have to be read in continuity for the pur-

pose of harmonious construction with the 2012 Amendment Act

in the background of judicial pronouncements which hold that

any part, especially amended provisions, need to be read as a

whole bearing in mind the entire scheme of the Act. Thus, only

due to removal of the term 'principal', principals cannot be

deemed to have been deliberately and/or intentionally excluded,

as such interpretation is not in conformity with settled principles

governing interpretation of statutes.

51. Learned counsel submitted that Section 2(am) of

the Act, which forms part of the definition clauses, was inserted

vide Act 68 of 1982 and provides for equivalence of post on

matrix of scale of pay meaning thereby that pay-scale is also a

pointer as to the category under which the post has to be in or-

der to avoid contradiction amongst the various provisions of the

Act. Another pointer in support of his contention is, he submit-

ted, was Section 10(14) of the Act, empowering the VC to trans-

fer any teacher of any department of any college to another de-

partment or college on equivalent post in terms of approved

guidelines of the Hon'ble Chancellor. The illustration to the said Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Section states that equivalent post means Reader and Principal

in the pay-scale of Reader and Professor and Principal in the

pay-scale of Professor. Accordingly, as per him, when the Act's

illustration clarifies the above equivalence, the State has created

an unnecessary and unwarranted controversy by adopting a my-

opic, and legally incorrect stance, based merely on the over-

simplistic premise that the term 'principal' subsequent to the

2012 Amendment Act does not find place in the definition of

teacher in Section 2(v) of the Act. At the cost of repetition, he

submitted that a new category was introduced by the 2012

Amendment Act which has to be fully effected without restric-

tion. The post of Principals and Professors/Readers are basically

interchangeable as would be obvious from Sections 9(7)(i),

10(14), 14 and 26 of the Act which suggest that Principals are

within the definition of 'teacher' in the statutory framework. In

this connection, learned counsel drew the Court's attention to

the averments made in paragraphs no. 45-46 in CWJC No.

14428 of 2017 where it has been stated that there are at least

two instances where the Patna University has transferred and/or

shifted a person holding the post of Principal to that of Reader

and Professor. He submitted that if the cadre of Principal was

totally insulated from and unconnected with teacher, then such Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

action of the Patna University could not have been resorted to,

as it would be impermissible under law.

52. Learned counsel submitted that the contention of

the Respondents, that the second category created by the 2012

Amendment Act would only take within its ambit Principals not

part of the permanent cadre of Principals, is wholly miscon-

ceived in view of Section 10(14) of the Act and the UGC Regu-

lations. Moreover, such construction would lead to, in fact, a

situation where it would take away the vested interest of Reader

and Professor grade to be appointed as Principal, which was

never the scheme of the Act, even prior to and after the 2012

Amendment Act. In furtherance of such proposition, he submit-

ted that the respondents' submission that the post of Principal

unless defined by tenure would not permit the holder of the post

thereof to claim the post of teacher is also misconceived, as the

post of Principal itself is either in the Reader or Professor grade,

and hence, a Principal would retain his/her basic identity, such

status/identity having been conferred on him/her by the Act,

would be taken away if such contention of the respondents was

upheld. It was advanced that on the appointment of the petition-

ers to the post of Principal in Reader or Professor grade, the

right to the post of Principal vesting at the relevant time with the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

vested right of being Reader or Professor which, admittedly, are

teaching posts would indicate they are still within 'teacher'.

53. He submitted that even if it is assumed that the

2012 Amendment Act removed 'principal', as the law does not

permit taking away a vested interest without the due process of

law or with retrospective effect, 'principal' would stand obvi-

ously and necessarily covered in the second category introduced

by the 2012 Amendment Act.

54. He submitted that the matter has been unnecessar-

ily pursued by the respondents on the reasoning that a

Reader/Professor cannot be appointed as Principal of a college,

if the subject he/she teaches is not taught in such college. The

admitted position clinches the issue to establish that the Prin-

cipal remains basically a teacher as the post of principal was

never meant to be out from the category of 'teacher'. Building

such line of arguments, he proceeded to submit that if at all

the Principal does not come under 'teacher', the stipulation, re-

quiring him/her to be a teacher of a subject taught in the college

where he is appointed/proposed to be appointed as Principal,

would become arbitrary and unreasonable having no nexus with

such appointment, if a Principal were to lose the identity/status

of teacher. In this connection, he advanced that in Dr. (Mrs.) Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Annapurna Devi (supra), the Court explained the scheme of the

Act, though prior to the 2012 Amendment Act, and analysed the

role and position of a Principal, based both on academic quali-

fication and entitlement to be so appointed, more importantly re-

lating to the subject taught as a teacher. In addition, he referred

to the two separate statutes regarding formation of Selection

Committees for appointment of Principals in single-faculty and

multi-faculty colleges which provide that, for single-faculty col-

leges, the expert has to be of the particular subject taught in the

college and thus, the Principal also has to be teacher of the same

subject, whereas, in respect of a multi-faculty college, the expert

can be of any of the subjects taught in such college, and the

Principal has to be a teacher of any one of the subjects taught in

the college.

55. Learned counsel submitted that the issue as to

whether the Principal is a teacher entitled to conduct teaching

work in a college/faculty came up for consideration

in Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna Devi (supra) and the Court answered

in light of Sections 2(k) and (v) read with 7 of the Patna Univer-

sity Act, which is pari materia Section 2(m) and (v) of the Act,

holding that a Principal is a teacher entitled to teach. Learned

counsel reiterated that Principals have been acting as guides for Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

students pursuing M.Phil. and/or Ph.D., and being guides is per-

missible under the UGC Regulations only to teachers possessing

the requisite prescribed qualification.

56. Countering the contention of learned Advocate

General that the second class of persons who were also brought

into the definition of 'teacher' by the 2012 Amendment Act was

only an enabling provision to provide for a group which would

include all such categories as teachers on the basis of future

UGC Guidelines/Regulations, is not fit to be accepted for the

reason that the Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005 at

page no. 1589 defines enabling Statute or Act as one which

makes it lawful to do something which would otherwise not be

lawful. By way of example, learned counsel drew an analogy for

compulsory take-over of land being authorized under law. He

relied on the Constitution Bench judgement in M. Nagaraj v

Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, the relevant being at para-

graph no. 106 which held that the enabling provision of Article

16(4-A) and 16(4-B) of the Constitution of India confers author-

ity on the Executive to provide for positive discrimination

which is applicable qua enabling Statutes that if the Legislature

enables something to be done, it gives power and at the same

time, by necessary implication, such powers which are indis-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

pensable for the purpose of carrying it out even though the same

may not be specifically enumerated therein. It was contended

that perusal of Section 2(v) of the Act would demonstrate that it

is merely a definition of 'teacher' without confirming any power

of enablement. It was further contended that the contention on

behalf of the State that such further group which has been added

by the 2012 Amendment Act would only be relevant prospect-

ively, as and when the UGC makes any addition is erroneous,

for the reason that no such restrictive meaning has either been

imposed by the Legislature or can be inferred both by plain

reading of the Statute or even by the authorities and precedents

relied on by the State. Learned counsel submitted that as far as

the 2017 Amendment Act is concerned, it has only expressly in

so many words included the term 'principal' which was all

along implicit earlier and also to remove any ambiguity or con-

fusion on the issue even though the same was not imperative or

required to be gone into by the State.

57. He urged that the 2017 Amendment Act did not

adversely affect the case of the petitioners as the 2012 Amend-

ment Act did not make the State take steps remove 'principal'

from 'teacher' either in view of the Preamble to the said amend-

ment or by any intention/conduct of the State, inasmuch as the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

petitioners were allowed to continue on such post even after

crossing the age of 62 years but for the controversy created by

the 2017 Amendment Act. Reliance was placed on the decision

in Zile Singh v State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1, the relevant

being from paragraphs no. 12-24.

58. Learned counsel, by way of explanation, further

submitted that the definition section/clauses of any Act do not

control the substantive provision of the Act which itself stands

clarified by the very opening lines of Section 2 of the Act which

state "in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the sub-

ject or context". In this connection, the contention of the re-

spondents that the UGC recognizes only three categories as

teachers which does not include Principal was flawed, it was

submitted, as the mere fact that the Principal post is either in the

Professor grade or Reader grade does not leave anything to ima-

gination or create any controversy of the Principal post being a

teacher post. Moreover, it was submitted that the Principal was

all along an equivalent post in the teachers grade, either Pro-

fessor or Associate Professor which are equivalent posts

provided for, both by Act as well as UGC Regulations, which is-

sue has not been answered by the respondents.

59. On the respondents' arguments that teachers are a Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

separate class and Principals do not fall in the category on the

strength of qualification for appointment as Principal as the

agencies entrusted with their selection are different in view of

the substituted Section 57 of the Act and subsequent amendment

incorporated in the year 2013, it was contended that various pro-

visions providing for equivalent post and cadre by the Acts as

well as the UGC has not been examined by learned counsel for

the respondents and the definition providing for a separate class

to be included within the definition of the word 'teacher' flows

from the UGC recognising a Principal as teaching staff. To the

contention of the respondents that the omission of the word

'principal' by the 2012 Amendment Act had to be challenged by

the petitioners, it was submitted that the same was not required

as it was nobody's case that the Principals were in the category

which was either meant to be or was actually removed from the

definition of 'teacher' by the 2012 Amendment Act. Such chal-

lenge, submitted learned counsel, would amount to creating a

ghost and then killing it. It was further submitted that the 2017

Amendment was clarificatory as the purpose of the said amend-

ment was that Principals were included in the definition of

teachers. It was advanced that while exercising powers under

Section 26(1)(e) and (g) of the UGC Act, the UGC is em-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

powered to define the qualifications that should ordinarily be re-

quired for any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the

University; it was stated that the 2010 UGC Regulations provide

for minimum qualification for direct recruitment of teachers in

Clause 4, for minimum qualification required for Principal in

Clause 4.2.0. It was submitted that Appendix 1 to these Regula-

tions, relied upon by the respondents, categorically provides for

a scheme for revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres

in Universities and Colleges. It was submitted that while refer-

ence was made to Clause (1)(i) thereof, Clause 1(iii) was com-

pletely lost sight of which provides for pay of teachers and equi-

valent posts in Universities and Colleges in two bands of pay

scale with appropriate Academic Grade Pay. It was further sub-

mitted that Clause 4 provides one of two pay-scales of teachers

to Principal and as such Principals are appointed in the teachers

grade. Learned counsel submitted that Clause 8(b) provides that

the scheme is applicable to teachers and equivalent cadres and

by Clause 8(b)(ii) to (iv) provides for posts to which it is not ap-

plicable, which pointedly does not exclude the post of Principal.

60. It was submitted that in Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna

Devi (supra), this Court had already held that principals are en-

titled to teach. Learned counsel, in this connection, drew the at-

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

tention of the Court to Annexure-14 in CWJC No.14428 of

2017, which is Resolution adopted at a meeting of Principals of

constituent colleges dated 08.09.2010, under the chairmanship

of the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, wherein the Fin-

ance Officer, Registrar, C.C.D.C., Financial Advisor, Nodal Of-

ficer, Controller of Exams, Development Officers and Dean Sci-

ence were present, and among various decisions taken, it was

also decided that principals will engage at least 1 or 2 hours of

classes every week.

61. Although learned counsel for the intervenors

had already concluded arguments, they wanted to further assist

the Court which was permitted. It was contended petitioners'

argument that principals have been transferred and posted as

Professor/Reader in the colleges on which they have been

transferred, namely Dr. Umesh Mishra and Dr. Dolly Sinha,

conceals the real facts, as both were appointed principals for a

period of five years and after completing the said term, were not

appointed as principal permanently.

62. At this juncture, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the intervenors have now started

approbating and reprobating their stance. It was submitted that

initially they had taken a stand that the Universities were not Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

appointing principals on tenure post, but by making the present

submission they had accepted that the Universities were also

making appointment on tenure posts and more importantly, if at

all, the 2012 Amendment Act has been fully upheld, even it is

retrospective effect from the year 1991 has been upheld and,

thus, all such actions of the Universities are deemed to have

been under and within the ambit of the law. He submitted that it

was not a matter of dispute that the petitioners not having been

disturbed even after attaining the age of 62 years even after

passing of the 2012 Amendment Act, the respondents, more

importantly, the State and the respective Universities were clear

that principals were neither intended to be nor actually were

removed from the definition of 'teacher', even after the 2012

Amendment Act.

63. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to

paragraph no. 8 of Dayanand Jha (supra), wherein the Court

had held that the power of the Vice-Chancellor to transfer the

Principal to the post of Reader was not available as per the

provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners

pointed out that the judgment belonged to the year 1986 by the

Amendment brought in Section 10(14) of the Act, by way of

addition of illustration in the year 1990, "equivalent post" meant Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Reader and Principal in the pay-scale of Reader, Professor and

Professor in the pay-scale of Principal.

64. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the Principal is the Research Supervisor also but as per

Clause 6.2 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum

Standards and Procedure for Award of M.PHIL./PH.D. Degrees)

Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the '2016 UGC

Regulations'), only a full-time regular teacher of the concerned

University/institution shall be deemed to be a supervisor and,

thus, principal would not fall into such category.

65. Again, the petitioners' counsel submitted that

the issue is not whether the Principal can be considered as a

regular and full-time teacher but whether he would come under

the definition of 'teacher' and, thus, as long as the principal is

permitted to hold classes, without objection or in contravention

of any of the UGC Regulations, he/she cannot be considered

outside the purview of 'teacher' in any manner under the UGC

Regulations and, thus, by implication even in the amended

definition 2(v) of the Act and 2(r) of the Patna University Act.

66. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused

the materials on record and surveyed the judicial precedents.

67. Challenge is laid to the impugned Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Notifications/Orders impacting the petitioners. The outcome of

these petitions is contingent on the interpretation to be given to

the amendments in question. Significantly, the petitioners have

not assailed the vires or the constitutional validity of either the

2012 Amendment Act or the 2017 Amendment Act. In these

circumstances, the Court sees no reason as to why these

petitions cannot be adjudicated by a Single Bench. There is no

requirement for these petitions to be heard by a Division Bench.

68. These petitions pose an interesting question,

but in the opinion of the Court, may not be as vexed as has been

made out to be.

69. The genesis of the present controversy is

traceable to the 2012 Amendment Act. A glace at the same

would disclose that the object of bringing about the said

amendment was strictly focused on the post of demonstrators

which had given rise to various anomalies. Thus, a detailed

discussion was incorporated into the Preamble to the 2012

Amendment Act that the same was necessitated to bring the Act

in tune with the 1991 UGC Regulations as also the decision of

the Division Bench of the erstwhile Ranchi Bench of this Court

in LPA No. 274 of 1997 (R) not to treat Lab Assistant as teacher

which was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

that their re-designation as Demonstrator had acquired the status

of teacher in terms of the definition of 'teacher' under the Act,

the decision in LPA No. 981 of 2011 dated 11.07.2011, which

was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court leading to the

Government of Bihar taking a decision on 14.06.2006 to re-

designate the Graduate Laboratory Assistant/Junior Laboratory

Assistant/Laboratory In-charge/Lab Technician/Technical

Assistant etc. appointed in the laboratories of the constituent

colleges as demonstrators and upon such re-designation as

demonstrator, the concerned employees were entitled to all

benefits of the post of demonstrator and therefore, re-

designation of non-teaching post had arisen. It was further stated

that the State Cabinet had decided to rectify the mistake in light

of the legal opinion and observation of the LPA Court and

decided to withdraw the previous decision to re-designate lab

personnel as Demonstrator with effect from the date of issuance

of letter of re-designation dated 14.06.2006 and its modification

dated 01.08.2006 leading to issuance of Government Resolution

No. 608 dated 10.04.2012. Thereafter, the aim and object of the

2012 Amendment Act has been spelt out in which it has been

stated that it was necessary to amend the definition of 'teacher'

to exclude non-teaching employee lab personnel re-designated Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Demonstrator with effect from the date of re-designation, as the

UGC and Central Government did not recognize Demonstrator

as teaching employee. Accordingly, the said amendment was

effectuated whereby Section 2(v) of the Act was substituted.

70. From the aforesaid, there cannot be any

controversy or dispute that the sole object of bringing about the

amendment was to remove the lab personnel re-designated

demonstrator out of the definition of teacher. Moreover, the

inclusion of "such sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on

the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time"

is further indicative of the legislative intent behind such

amendment. Moreover, the Preamble to a statute can serve to

find out the intent of what the statute seeks to implement. The

observation in Bishwambar Singh v State of Orissa, 1954 SCR

842 by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

enables this view:

"17. The long title of the Act and the two preambles which have been quoted above clearly indicate that the object and purpose of the Act is to abolish all the rights, title and interest in land of intermediaries by whatever name known. This is a clear enunciation of the policy which is sought to be implemented by the operative provisions of the Act..."

(emphasis supplied)

71. This is further reinforced by In Re The Kerala Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Education Bill, 1959 SCR 995, as follows:

"9. The long title of the said Bill describes it as "A Bill to provide for the better organisation and development of educational institutions in the State". Its preamble recites thus: "Whereas it is deemed necessary to provide for the better organ- isation and development of educational institutions in the State providing a varied and comprehensive educational service throughout the State". We must, therefore, approach the substantive provi- sions of the said Bill in the light of the policy and purpose deducible from the terms of the aforesaid long title and the preamble and so construe the clauses of the said Bill as will subserve the said policy and purpose...

xxx

19. Reference has already been made to the long title and the preamble of the Bill. That the policy and purpose of a given measure may be de- duced from the long title and the preamble thereof has been recognised in many decisions of this Court and as and by way of ready reference we may mention our decision in Bishambar Singh v. State of Orissa [(1954) SCR 842, 855] as an instance in point. The general policy of the Bill as laid down in its title and elaborated in the pre- amble is "to provide for the better organisation and development of educational institutions provid- ing a varied and comprehensive educational ser- vice throughout the State". Each and every one of the clauses in the Bill has to be interpreted and read in the light of this policy. When, therefore, any particular clause leaves any discretion to the Gov- ernment to take any action it must be understood that such discretion is to be exercised for the pur- pose of advancing and in aid of implementing and not impeding this policy. ... The clear implication of these provisions read in the light of the policy deducible from the long title and the preamble is that in the matter of granting permission or recog- nition the Government must be guided by the con- sideration whether the giving of such permission or Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

recognition will enure for the better organistion and development of educational institutions in the State, whether it will facilitate the imparting of general or special education or the training of teachers and if it does then permission or recogni- tion must be granted but it must be refused if it im- pedes that purpose..."

(emphasis supplied)

72. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly

submitted that by the 2012 Amendment Act, the word 'principal'

being removed along with 'demonstrator' was for the obvious

reason that principal already stood included in sanctioned posts

in the teacher grade on the basis of regulation issued by the

UGC from time to time. Learned counsel submitted that the

confusion appears to have occurred due to the 2017 Amendment

Act with effect from 18.05.2017 where once again 'principal'

has been included in 'teacher'. Learned counsel for the

petitioners are justified in contending that the Aims and Object

of the 2012 Amendment Act leave no doubt that the sole

purpose of behind the 2012 Amendment Act was to exclude and

remove persons who had nothing to do with teaching but were

still included within the definition of 'teacher'.

73. With regard to the strong emphasis laid by

learned counsel for the intervenors that the word 'principal' was

also deleted along with 'demonstrator' and the 2012

Amendment Act not being interdicted till the level of the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be viewed at in

isolation without going into the fact that the challenge to the

same was only by Demonstrators. Further, no principal had

knocked the doors of the Court because both, they as well as the

State authorities, including the Universities, believed that they

already stood covered in the amended definition reading "such

sanctioned posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of

regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time". Moreover,

it cannot be lost sight of that even after the 2012 Amendment

Act, the Principals who had crossed the age of 62 were not

called upon to demit office and/or removed upon attaining the

age of 62 years on the ground that they came under the category

of non-teaching employees whose age of superannuation was

fixed as 62 years and not teachers where the age of retirement

was fixed as 65 years. This is the major bone of contention

between the parties as any category which comes under the

definition of 'teacher' would be superannuating upon attaining

the age of 65 years whereas non-teachers would superannuate

upon attaining the age of 62 years.

74. Going by the conduct of the State as well, no

step was ever taken after the 2012 Amendment Act to disturb

the Principals who were holding such posts even after they Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

attained the age of 62 years, till much after the 2017

Amendment Act having come into force.

75. The 2017 Amendment Act which again

incorporated the word 'principal' in the definition of 'teacher'

can, at best, be labelled clarificatory. It appears that the 2017

Amendment Act was brought in by the State ex abundanti

cautela. The post of Principal having been restricted to senior

persons holding the post of Professor and Reader is yet another

pointer that the Principal cannot be termed as a non-teaching

employee/staff, as also held in Dr. (Mrs) Annapurna Devi

(supra). It has rightly been contended on behalf of the

petitioners that the eligibility of the post of being directly related

to the post of person applied for it having direct nexus to the

object sought to be achieved and the provision is yet another

indication that the post of Principal would come under the

definition in the teacher.

76. The fact that on the one hand though the word

'principal' has been deleted along with the word 'demonstrator'

from the definition of 'teacher' by the 2012 Amendment Act but

equally on the other hand, the fact remains that another group

has been included, that is, "persons holding such sanctioned

posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of regulations issued by Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

the U.G.C. from time to time". Thus, the settled principles of

interpretation being not to hold any portion of the statute to be

superfluous or redundant and also to give meaning to each and

every word used by the Legislature, a 'principal' would

necessarily, and axiomatically, anyway be included in such

portion of the definition of 'teacher' in the 2012 Amendment

Act. In this connection, rightly learned counsel for the

petitioners have relied upon the decision in Aswini Kumar

Ghosh (supra). The proviso to such definition in the 2012

Amendment Act, where there is a Saving clause in respect of the

status of demonstrators as teachers, who were appointed before

18.09.1975, would also make it clear that by such amendment,

the sole purpose of the Legislature was to remove

'demonstrator' from 'teacher' and ipso facto would not imply

that the post of principal has been removed, because as dealt

with hereinabove, principal would be included in the latter part

of the substituted definition.

77. Learned counsel for the UGC has been clear in

his submissions that the post of principal was never

contemplated to be outside the broad definition of 'teacher' and,

also by implication, would most definitely form part of

academic/teaching post. Further, he submitted, the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

principal being incorporated in the UGC Regulations is

suggestive that the same comes under teacher grade, as the the

UGC is empowered to make regulations only in respect of

teaching staff/employees, and not non-teaching staff/employees.

78. The 2010 UGC Regulations do not provide for

any distinction between principals and teachers. It also provides

pay-scale of the posts of Professor, Associate Professor,

Assistant Professor, Reader and Lecturer and the pay-scale of

principals of undergraduate and postgraduate colleges has been

directed to be fixed by the concerned University based on

eligibility in respect of educational qualification and

teaching/research experience earning during service.

Furthermore, the 2010 UGC Regulations provide for the pay-

scale of principals in the same pay-band as teachers. It is thus,

beyond the shadow of doubt, that principals come under the

category of teachers as per the 2010 UGC Regulations.

Moreover, the UGC having issued Memo No. 2/2015 dated

13.08.2015 mandating that provision of research work of

M.Phil./Ph.D. degrees can be undertaken only by a regular

teacher of University in terms of its 2009 Regulations, some of

the petitioners having supervised research work or scholars

leading to them being awarded Ph.D. on the basis of theses Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

prepared under their supervision, adds force to the submission

of the petitioners that a principal has to be considered a teacher.

79. It has also rightly been contended on behalf of

the petitioner that the opening words "in the Act, unless there is

anything repugnant in the subject or context" shows the intent

of the Legislature not to exclude the post of principal from the

definition of 'teacher' by the 2012 Amendment Act and to save

the same from being rendered unworkable which is reflected

from the fact that the statutory scheme of the Act including the

statutes framed thereunder still in force post the 2012

Amendment Act, clearly reveals that Principals were appointed

on sanctioned posts which was either in the Professor grade or

teacher grade as per Section 57 of the Act. Section 57A of the

Act provides for constitution of Selection Committee for

appointment for the post of Teacher and Officer of the

University for which a Selection Committee of affiliated

colleges not maintained by the State Government and the latter

including the Principal of the College as member of the

Selection Committee would show that the Principals themselves

are also under the category of teachers as there cannot be valid

justification or rational for inclusion of a non-teaching person as

member of such Selection Committee. In this connection, it Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

would be relevant to note that the Selection Committee is to

include three experts, who are required to be in the rank of

University Professor and of whom, at least one shall be a Vice-

Chancellor/Former Vice-Chancellor/Director/Principal of a

constituent college.

80. Section 14(1) of the Act, is also noted, which

provides that the "Dean of Students' Welfare shall be appointed

by the Vice-Chancellor for a period of two years from amongst

the University Professors, Readers or Principals". Section 14(3)

of the Act provides that "the teacher appointed as the Dean,

Students' Welfare under sub-section (1) shall hold lien on his

original post, and he shall be eligible for all the benefits which

would have otherwise accrued to him...". Section 26(5)(i)(a)

provides for "Dean of Faculty", who has to be "appointed by

the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the University Professors

and the Principals of the rank of the University Professors...",

while sub-section (b) thereof mandates that for appointment as

Dean of Faculty, "it shall be necessary for the person concerned

to be a teacher in the Faculty". Ergo, a conjoint reading of the

afore-referred provisions would also lead to the inescapable

conclusion that the post of principal would come under the

definition of 'teacher'.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

81. The matter is capable of being examined from

another lens too. If the contentions of the State and the

intervenors are accepted, it would certainly result in a clearly

anomalous situation where persons eligible for appointment as

principals, being teachers, would be expected to give up 3 years

of service with all benefits etc. to be so appointed. In other

words, the post of Principal would, thus, remain unfilled as the

persons, who are eligible, if it was not to be considered as a

teacher post would not willingly forego three years of service

only to hold the post of Principal, which otherwise carries the

same pay-scale as that of Professor/Reader. Learned counsel for

the petitioner has given specific instances where the office of

the Hon'ble Chancellor had issued directions, pursuant to which

the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University under letter 176/GIA

dated 08.05.2013 had directed Principals of all the colleges to

provide their details in prescribed format for determination of

their seniority for appointment as Dean of Faculty and in this

connection, the petitioner no. 3 in CWJC No. 14428 of 2017 had

submitted his details on 24.05.2013. While posted as Principal,

College of Commerce, Patna, he was appointed Dean, Faculty

of Law, Magadh University, under Memo No. 31/98-389/G1A

dated 15.09.2014.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

82. There is yet another angle to the matter. The

Court finds that the 2017 Amendment Act, vide Section 4

thereof viz. the Savings clause, specifically mandates that

notwithstanding the amendment, "anything done or decision or

action taken prior to it shall be deemed to have been validly

done or taken and shall not be questioned on the ground of

amendment." Admittedly, the 2017 Amendment Act came into

effect on 18.05.2017. This Court finds that the impugned actions

of the State have occurred much after the said date. In other

words, Section 4 of the 2017 Amendment Act only protects

actions taken prior to 18.05.2017, and not after it. This also

militates against the State respondents herein, as their actions

are all much after 18.05.2017. Having permitted the petitioners

to continue, the respondents cannot now be permitted to unsettle

things.

83. In the Court's opinion, reliance has rightly

been placed by the petitioners on the communication to the

UGC, New Delhi, by the Director, Ministry of Human

Resources Development, Government of India, dated

26.08.2010, wherein it has been stated that on the

recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, pay of Principal

has been revised akin to that of a Teacher. Similarly, in the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Budget, which has been brought on record by the Magadh

University for the year 2016-2017, the post of Principal has

been shown in the sanctioned post of Teacher and the budgetary

allocation for Principal has been made under the head of

Teacher and in terms thereof, the budget was approved and

released vide Memo No. 274 dated 26.02.2017 by the Director,

Higher Education, Government of Bihar, in favour of the

principals. Thus, even the State accepted that the principals

would also come under the category of 'teacher' even after the

2012 Amendment Act. In this connection, it has also not been

controverted by the other side that while holding the post of

Principals, the petitioners have also actually taken classes in

their colleges pursuant to a Resolution dated 08.09.2010 of all

Principals of the constituent colleges of the Magadh University.

This has continued even after the 2012 Amendment Act, and

such position is not disputed.

84. The learned Advocate General advanced that

there cannot be any ambiguity in the Legislature's intention,

which in its wisdom, has taken a conscious decision to bring out

from the definition of 'teacher', both 'principal' and

'demonstrator'. This submission appears attractive at first blush,

however, does not factor in that though 'principal' was removed, Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

a much broader term "such sanctioned posts in the teacher's

grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time

to time" was simultaneously inserted. It is apt to note that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held way back, in Poppatlal Shah v

State of Madras, 1953 SCR 677, that "It is a settled rule of

construction that to ascertain the legislative intent, all the

constituent parts of a statute are to be taken together and each

word, phrase or sentence is to be considered in the light of the

general purpose and object of the Act itself." Moreover,

paragraph no. 10 of Malik Zarid Khalid (supra), relied upon by

the State, on closer scrutiny, supports the petitioners:

"10. We are unable to accept the appellant's contention. The interpretation placed by the Full Bench of the High Court on Section 3(o) equates the position under the statute after the amendment of 1976 to the position both as it stood prior to the 1976 amendment and also as it stood after the 1983 Ordinance. Such an approach fails to give any effect at all to the change in language deliberately introduced by the 1976 amendment. No doubt, prior to the amendment, only buildings of which the government was owner or landlord were excluded from the Act. But the legislature clearly intended a departure from the earlier position. If the intention was merely to extend the benefit to premises owned or let out by public corporations, it could have been achieved by simply adding a reference to such corporations in Section 2(1)(a) and (b) as they stood earlier. Reading Section 2(1)(a) and (b) as they stood before amendment and the definition in Section 3(o) side by side, the departure in language is so wide and clear that it is impossible to ignore the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

same and hold that the new definition was just a re-enactment of the old exemption. The exclusion was earlier restricted to buildings owned by the government and buildings taken on lease or requisitioned by government and granted by it by creating a tenancy in favour of someone. The amendment significantly omitted the crucial words present in the earlier legislation which had the effect of restricting the exclusion to tenancies created by the government, either as owner or as landlord. Full effect must be given to the new definition in Section 3(o) and to the conscious departure in language in reframing the exclusion."

(emphasis supplied)

85. Evidently, the instant case is where a term is

taken outside a definition clause, but as reasoned by this Court,

the said term is implicit in the phrase added by the very same

amendment. Plainly stated, the conscious choice to omit

'principal' from within the pale of 'teacher' is not easily

deducible, as vehemently contended by the State and

intervenors. As such, even applying the principles, inter alia,

enumerated in Hansoli Devi (supra), this Court still reaches the

same conclusion. Apropos the Act and the 2012 Amendment

Act, when the language thereof, is literally construed, finding

the language to be clear and unambiguous, would also not lead

this Court down a different path, while bearing in mind the dicta

in Lt. Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v Union of India, (1982) 3

SCC 140; Raghunath Rai Bareja v Punjab National Bank,

(2007) 2 SCC 230; B. Premanand v Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

SCC 266, and; Union of India v Pfizer Limited, (2018) 2 SCC

39.

86. The learned Advocate General submitted that

the vires of the 2012 Amendment Act had been upheld till the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, but this simpliciter does not aid his

case. As evident from the narration hereinbefore, the only class

adversely affected was demonstrators, and not principals.

Further, even the State, all along, did not interpret the 2012

Amendment Act in the way in which it has now sought to do so.

As such, there was no cause for the present petitioners to assail

the 2012 Amendment Act. Even now, the question is one of pure

interpretation of a statute and, as noticeable in this judgement,

did not require an examination into the constitutional validity of

the enactment(s) in question. This is another reason why a

Single Bench is perfectly competent to decide this batch of

cases.

87. In similar vein, contention of the learned

counsel for the intervenors that the 2010 UGC Regulations

recognize only three categories of teachers in the University viz.

the Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor and

the post of Principal being included under the category 'Other

Academic Staff of the University and Colleges' is also not Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

appropriate as the eligibility for being appointed as Principal is

that the person hold an appropriate post of teacher, whereas, the

other academic staff i.e., Registrar, Laboratory and Physical

Education personnel etc. cannot be clubbed with the Principal as

the eligibility in their case is not that of holding a teaching post.

Even as per the own contention of learned counsel for the

intervenors, in the challenge to the 2012 Amendment Act, a

Division Bench in Akhauri Bijay Prakash Sinha (supra),

observed with regard to only the categories of

Professor/Reader/Lecturer being in the cadre of teachers. This

cannot be taken to mean that the Court held that Principal would

be considered as a non-teaching post since the Court was never

considering such issue. More significantly, the import, purport

and effect of the phrase "such sanctioned posts in the teacher's

grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time

to time" did not arise before the Division Bench.

88. The Court takes note of the submissions of the

intervenors that it must strive to give effect to the words used in

the statute and not adopt hypothetical construction on the

ground that such construction is more consistent with the

alleged object and policy of the Act, relying upon the decisions

in Hansoli Devi (supra), Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma (supra) and Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

Nathi Devi (supra).

89. There is no quarrel with the propositions laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, and especially

so, in Nathi Devi (supra), it was held that the interpretive

function of the Court is to discover the true legislative intent.

Thus, the decisions cited above actually further the cause of the

petitioners and not the intervenors as "and such sanctioned

posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of the regulations

issued by the U.G.C. from time to time" has to be duly

considered. It is no longer res integra that for the purpose of

interpreting a statute, the same is to be read in its entirety and all

efforts must be directed towards giving effect to the statutory

scheme. Reference in this regard may gainfully be made to

High Court of Gujarat v Gujarat Kisan Mazdoor Panchayat,

(2003) 4 SCC 712; State of West Bengal v Sujit Kumar Rana,

(2004) 4 SCC 129 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni v United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385.

90. In Lalit Mohan Pandey v Pooran Singh,

(2004) 6 SCC 626, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "A

statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent.

It has to be meaningful. A construction which leads to manifest

absurdity must not be preferred to a construction which would Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

fulfil the object and purport of the legislative intent."

91. Thus, upon reading the Act and the its scheme

in entirety, it is interpreted that the post of Principal remained

under the category of 'teacher'. The fact that the 2017

Amendment Act included the term 'principal' expressly in the

definition of 'teacher' also shows that without any requirement,

the same was only by way clarification or to remove any

confusion/ambiguity and further, that the Principal always was a

'teacher' for if the Principal would not have been a teacher from

2012 to 2017, then without there being any justification or basis

either in law or by the pronouncements of the Court or under the

UGC regulations, the same could not have been re-introduced

by the State dehors a cogent reason.

92. There is merit in the petitioners' contention

that if a Reader/Professor cannot be appointed as a Principal of

the College if the subject he/she teaches is not taught in such

college also indicates that the Principal has to be a teacher of the

subject, which is taught in the concerned college, otherwise,

such stipulation would become arbitrary and unreasonable

having no nexus with such appointment. In this regard, the

decision in Dr. (Mrs.) Annapurna Devi (supra), albeit pre-

dating the 2012 Amendment Act, has enunciated the role and Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

position of a Principal, based both on academic qualification

and entitlement to such appointment, including relating to the

subject taught as a teacher. Moreover, the Court held that a

Principal is a teacher entitled to teach and having been acting as

guides for students pursuing M. Phil./Ph.D., and the degrees

having been awarded to such students, should also lead this

Court to the conclusion that principals were always within the

ambit of 'teacher'.

93. This Court has borne in mind that it cannot add

or read words into a statute nor can it legislate, for which

guidance is forthcoming from the decisions in Premanand

(supra); Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(2017) 14 SCC 663, and; Delhi Development Authority v

Virender Lal Bahri, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 279.

94. Amidst the backdrop of the discussions

hereinabove, it is held that the 2012 Amendment Act, though

deleting the term 'principal' in the definition of 'teacher' in the

Act would not render the post of Principal to be a non-teaching

post and would be covered under the term "and such sanctioned

posts in the teacher's grade on the basis of the regulations

issued by the U.G.C. from time to time".

95. Accordingly, CWJC No. 7701 of 2017, CWJC Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

No. 14428 of 2017, CWJC No. 14478 of 2017, CWJC No.

14493 of 2017, CWJC No. 14508 of 2017, CWJC No. 14539 of

2017, CWJC No. 14562 of 2017, CWJC No. 14688 of 2017,

CWJC No. 14743 of 2017, CWJC No. 14744 of 2017, CWJC

No. 14748 of 2017, CWJC No.14917 of 2017, CWJC No.

15644 of 2017 and CWJC No. 15800 of 2017 stand allowed to

the extent indicated, whereas CWJC No. 2250 of 2017 stands

dismissed.

96. Consequently, the order(s), letter(s),

communication(s) or notice(s), impugned in the succeeding writ

petitions, stand quashed and set aside.

97. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any,

stand disposed of.

98. As a sequel to the above, the petitioners made

to retire in terms of the State's understanding of the 2017

Amendment Act shall be deemed to have continued on the posts

of Principal till they attained the age of 65 years and shall be

entitled to all consequential benefits, including pay and

emoluments as well as continuity in service. It had been

submitted at the Bar that recoveries have been made from

certain persons. It is directed that the same be returned

forthwith.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

99. The aforesaid be done within 16 weeks from

the date of production of a copy of this judgement before the

Vice-Chancellors and Registrars concerned.

100. The Court places on record its appreciation

for the assistance rendered by learned senior advocates and

advocates representing the various parties.

101. Before concluding, the following is noted. In

Annamalai University (supra), it was held:

"42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conven- tional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of in- structions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subor- dinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.

xxx

44. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act (sic the Regulations) are applicable and binding on all concerned. ..."

Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

102. However, in Kalyani Mathivanan v K V

Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363, it was laid down that the 2010 UGC

Regulations are mandatory qua Central Universities and

colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be

universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC,

but for institutions of this nature under the purview of State

legislation, the State Governments had been left with the choice

of adopting and implementing them.

103. This Court had an occasion to consider the

applicability of UGC Regulations in Simpi Kumari v State of

Bihar, MANU/BH/0235/2021 [alternately 2021 (2) BLJ 620 |

2021 (2) PLJR 430]:

"10. The mere publishing or circulation of model regulations by the University Grants Commission would not ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on the universities concerned, except when duly adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university concerned, when such university happens to be a State University. In the present case, the University has been operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K V Jeyaraj, MANU/SC/0241/2015: (2015) 6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:--

'20. We have heard the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

counsel for the parties and the issues that arise for our consideration are:

(i) whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory in nature; and

(ii) whether in the event of conflict between the University Act, the regulations framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would prevail or not; and

(iii) whether the post of Vice-

Chancellor of a university is to be considered as part of the teaching staff.

xxx

31. The Annexure to the UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes the minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of university and college teachers, librarians, Directors of Physical Education and Sports.

xxx

56. We have noticed and held that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature unless the State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this connection, one may refer to Para 8(p)(v) of Appendix I dated 31-12-2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.

xxx 62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central universities and colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC.

62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the Patna High Court CWJC No.7701 of 2017 dt. 08-10-2021

purview of the State legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly directory.'

(emphasis supplied)"

(underlining per original)

104. This divergence has been noticed for the sake

of completeness, and, does not affect the cases at hand, in any

manner, as the applicability of the relevant UGC Regulations to

the Universities concerned has been consciously engrafted into

the Acts by the Legislature.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

P. Kumar /Anjani Anand/ J. Alam/-

    AFR/NAFR               AFR
        U