Allowed

Dr. Shatrudhan Sah v. The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya and Ors.

Patna HC4 Sept 2012CWJC/14066/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a lecturer on a sanctioned post, challenged an order restricting eligibility for Teachers' Representative election to those approved by a dissolved Commission. The Court held the classification arbitrary and set aside the exclusion.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 4.7.2012 was set aside prospectively to allow participation in future elections for teachers on sanctioned posts.

Dr. Shatrudhan Sah Vs The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14066 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Dr. Shatrudhan Sah Son Of Late Chulhai Sah Resident Of Balbhadra Bhavan Parwati Path, New Chitrqa Nagar P.S. Patrakar Nagar District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya Through Its Registrar 2. The Vice Chancellor Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 3. The Registrar Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4. The Principal S.K.M.V. College Fatuha, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Hansraj, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶3

4 04-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be a lecturer in the S.K.M.V. College at Fatuha, affiliated to the respondent University. He is aggrieved by order dated 4.7.2012 issued by the Vice Chancellor restricting the right to be included in the voters’ list and consequently to contest the election for the post of Teachers’ Representative in the Governing Body confining the same only to those teachers whose appointments had been approved by the Bihar College Service Commission. It is not in controversy that the Commission has been wound up in 2007 and has been replaced by the Selecting Body as provided for in Section-57A of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended in

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.14066 of 2012 (4) dt.04-09-2012

¶5

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is working in the College on a sanctioned post. His appointment has not been questioned by the respondent University at any stage. His efficiency as a teacher has not been doubted by the University at any time and he continues to discharge duties to their satisfaction as a teacher. The distinction sought to be created by the respondents is artificial having no nexus or object.

¶8

Learned counsel for the University from the counter affidavit reiterates the contents of the impugned order without furthermore.

¶9

While classification is permissible under Article-14 based on reasonable or intelligible differentia, a classification made without any rationale or nexus with the object to be achieved is per se arbitrary. The appointment of the petitioner is either valid or it is invalid. He cannot be a valid appointee for some purposes and an invalid appointee for other purposes. A teacher as defined in Section 2(v) of the Act cannot have a dual identity, one for imparting education and another for participating in the elections. The respondent University has never questioned the appointment of the petitioner.

¶10

In (1974) 4 SCC 428 (murthy Match Works v. CCE)

¶11

on reasonable classification it was observed as follows:-

¶12

“15…..But classification can be sustained only

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.14066 of 2012 (4) dt.04-09-2012

¶14

¶15

if it is founded on pertinent and real difference as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. The constitutional standard by which the sufficiency of the differentia which form a valid basis for classification may be measured, has been repeatedly stated by the courts. If it rests of a difference which bears a fair and just relation to the object for which it is proposed, it is constitutional. To put it differently, the means must have nexus with the ends. Even so, a large latitude is allowed to the State for classification upon a reasonable basis and what is reasonable is a question of practical details and a variety of factors which the Court will be reluctant and perhaps ill-equipped to investigate. In this imperfect world perfection even in grouping is an ambition hardly ever accomplished. In this context, we have to remember the relationship between the legislative and judicial departments of Government in the determination of the validity of classification. Of course, in the last analysis courts possess the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of the acts of the other branches whether a classification is based upon substantial differences or is arbitrary, fanciful and consequently illegal…..”

¶16

¶17

If persons like the petitioner were to be denied participation in the process of election for election of teachers representative in the Governing Body, there had to be some rationale or nexus with the object to be achieved by excluding such persons from the arena of election. Unfortunately, the counter affidavit does not even suggest an iota of reason and yet seeks to contest despite being defenceless.

¶18

The fact that the Commission stood abolished in 2007, reference to the same in the impugned order is further evidence of non-application of mind.

¶19

The Court is informed that the elections are held annually. The election in which the petitioner was denied

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.14066 of 2012 (4) dt.04-09-2012

¶21

¶22

participation is over. The question of the Writ Court setting aside an election or interfering with an election result does not arise. The present order therefore has necessarily to be prospective in its operation only.

¶23

The order dated 4.7.2012 is therefore set aside insofar as it denies participation in election to a teacher like the petitioner whose appointment may not have formally been approved by the Bihar College Service Commission so long as they are working on a sanctioned post and the University has no questions with regard to their appointment.

¶24

The application is allowed.

¶25

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶26

K.C.jha/-

Dr. Shatrudhan Sah v. The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Shatrudhan Sah v. The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bhawan Prasad @ Ram Bhawan Prasad Vs The Magadh Univerrsity, Bodh Gaya and Ors.

Shaukat Ali and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Firoza Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Jagat Narayan Nayak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Farzana Khatoon and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.