Patna High Court
Krishna Narayan Mishra vs Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara on 7 April, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18937 of 2021
======================================================
1. Krishna Narayan Mishra Son of Prabhu Narayan Mishra P-2 University
Bungalow, Khandwa Road, Indore (M.P.)
2. Devjee Mishra Son of Late Bateshwar Mishra resident of Village- Jagatpur,
P.S.- Krishnagarh, District- Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara through its Registrar
2. The Vice- Chancellor, Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara
3. The Registrar, Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-04-2025
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Prasad
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Veer Kuwar Singh
University.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"That this is an application for issuance of an
appropriate writ/directions for quashing the notification
contained in Memo no. 1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.9.2021
issued by the Registrar of Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara
(hereinafter referred as the University) whereby and
whereunder petitioners appointment on the post of Assistant
Professors of M.B.A. (self Finance course) in the said
University has been cancelled and allow them to function
on the post Assistant Professors. The petitioners further
pray for payment of arrear of salary as Assistant Professor
in M.B.A. (self finance course) and also grant any other
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
2/7
reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. An Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 was published
on 22.05.2020 seeking application from the prospecting
candidates having requisite qualification for the post of
Assistant Professor in different faculty. The petitioners had
applied for the post of Assistant Professor of M.B.A. (Self
Finance Course). The advertisement was in respect of five posts
under different categories informing that the payment of
honorarium shall be made subject to the availability of funds
and decision of the Finance Committee.
4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the
University contained in Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021 dated
11.09.2021
(Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the
Registrar of the Veer Kuwar Singh University, Ara, by which the
engagement / appointment of the petitioners were cancelled.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that after following the due process of appointment in
accordance with law, the petitioners were appointed on the post
of Assistant Professor of M.B.A. (Self Finance Course) on
08.12.2020 and the petitioners were discharging their duties till
11.09.2021. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry
Committee, the Syndicate proceeded to review its own decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
which was taken in respect of advertising the post vide
Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 and pursuant to which, the
petitioners were selected in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the said advertisement and they were also getting
the required pay scale of Assistant Professor as per the UGC
guidelines as per the decision of the Syndicate taken in exercise
of power contained in Section 23 of the Bihar Universities Act.
Learned counsel further submitted that the decision to cancel its
own decision by the Syndicate is against the statutory provision
of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. There is no provision of
review in the Statute and cancellation of appointment of the
petitioner on this very ground is not sustainable in the eye of
law. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was
not given any due opportunity of hearing and taking notice of
the statement made in Para-9 of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the University, learned counsel submitted that the
order of cancellation of the appointment, even considering to be
contractual appointment or Ad hoc appointment is not
termination simplicitor as the terms and conditions of the
appointment is in accordance with the governing statutory
provision of the Universities Act, 1976. Learned counsel further
submitted that even if it is considered that the appointment of
the petitioners was on temporary basis subject to the availability
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
of funds and approval of the Finance Committee in terms of the
advertisement, then also the same will be considered to be
punitive in nature considering the statement made in Para-19
wherein a consideration has been made in respect of the past
services of the petitioner no.2 in the Air Force. On these
grounds, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order
contained in Memo No. 1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.09.2021
(Annexure-1) in respect of cancellation of services of the
petitioners is not in accordance with law and same is fit to be set
aside and quashed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submitted
that the petitioners' conduct is self evident from their own
pleading made in Paragraph No.7 of the rejoinder in which
petitioner no.2 has not contradicted that he has been dismissed
from Air Force after proper holding of Court Martial and the
said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 27.09.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2013.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Syndicate was
apprised by the Enquiry Committee duly constituted pursuant to
the Advertisement No. 01 of 2020 and on the basis of the
Enquiry Committee report, the functionaries of the Universities
who have made appointment of the petitioners at the relevant
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
point of time were responsible for such illegality committed in
the appointment of the petitioners and other Assistant Professors
pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2020. Learned counsel
further submitted that illegality should not be perpetuated,
however, though no observation was made by this Court vide
order dated 03.09.2024 in respect of petitioner no.2, but the
petitioner no.2 was advised to withdraw the writ petition.
Learned counsel further submitted that in Para-10 of the counter
affidavit, specific statement has been made that in the meeting
of the Syndicate dated 01.09.2021, it had come to the
knowledge of the Syndicate that person having less than 60%
marks were also appointed as an Assistant Professor in the
Department of M.B.A., which is in complete violation of
Section 5(10) of the Statute Part-II of the Bihar State
Universities Act, 1976. However, learned counsel admits that no
specific information has been given in respect of the petitioners
in respect of their percentage of marks obtained in Master of
Business Administration Course. As the same was not provided
by the petitioners at the time of submission of their resume, the
decision of the Syndicate dated 01.09.2021 cannot be interfered
with.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made on
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
behalf of the parties as well as the pleading made in the writ
petition and the counter affidavit, the main issue involved in the
present writ petition is as to whether pursuant to the
appointment of the petitioners on 08.12.2020, can their
appointment be cancelled unilaterally on the basis of the
decision of the Syndicate dated 01.09.2021?
8. The law in this regard is well settled in the case of
Swati Priyadarshini vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.9758 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) No.11685 of 2021), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
court has held that even in the case of contractual employee
before the order which is punitive in nature is passed, the
minimum requirement is to provide opportunity of hearing after
holding the inquiry and giving reason for the same.
9. It is admitted that the petitioners were getting
honorarium of Rs.30000/- per month and on the basis of the
internal report of the inquiry committee, the petitioners were
appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2020 after
following the due process of selection as prescribed therein in
the Statute. The action of the University and its authority
including the Syndicate in reviewing its own decision is alien to
the statute of the University and the remarks in the order dated
11.09.2021 can only be said to be punitive in nature.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18937 of 2021 dt.07-04-2025
10. The order impugned also cannot be held to be in
accordance with law affecting the future appointment of the
petitioner no.2 who had already given all details in respect of his
past services and his dismissal from the Indian Air Force. There
is no suppression of any information on the part of the
petitioners and for the fault of the University at the time of
engagement / appointment of the petitioners, the University is
solely responsible for their own act.
11. The impugned order contained in Memo No.
1696/Estab/2021 dated 11.09.2021 on the basis of the decision
of the Syndicate dated 01.09.2021 being punitive is set aside
and quashed.
12. The concerned respondents are directed to take
corrective steps in accordance with law.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 09.04.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
