http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DR. (SUSHRI) RAJNI BALA AGRAWAL,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LALIT NARAIN MITHILA UNIVERSITY DARBHANGA (BIHAR) & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/01/1999

BENCH: Sujata V. Manohar, G.B.Pattanaik

JUDGMENT:

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.

     This  is  an appeal from a judgment and order  of  the Full Bench of the Patna High Court dated 18.12.1991.

     A  private college then known as Mahila  Mahavidalaya, Madhubani,  was  established on 1.8.1971.  On  1.9.1971  the appellant  was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department  of Hindi on a temporary basis for a period of six months by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College.  Pursuant to her   appointment  the  appellant   joined  the  college  on 1.9.1971.   In  June,  1977 the Governing Body of  the  said College  advertised  for  the  post  of  a  lady  Principal. Pursuant  to the advertisement the appellant applied for the post  of  Principal.  She was interviewed along  with  three other  candidates and was found suitable.  On 11.7.1977  the appellant  was appointed as a Principal of the said  college on a temporary basis.

     By   a   notification  dated   6.10.1982   the   Bihar Intermediate Education Board granted recognition to the said college   for  teaching  upto   intermediate   level.    The notification,  inter  alia,  created one post  of  Principal without  any  financial  burden.   The  college  itself  was required  to  bear the expenses to be incurred, inter  alia, against  the  said post.  Concurrence of the  Bihar  College Service  Commission,  Patna,  however,  was  required.   The notification  also  stated that in the college, teaching  of degree  level  should  not be arranged.   The  approval  was granted  with  effect  from   1.6.1981.   According  to  the appellant she continued as the Principal of the said college after  it  was  recognised   upto  intermediate  level.   No concurrence,   however,  of  the   Bihar   College   Service Commission,  Patna, was obtained for her occupying the  said post.

     On  3.10.1985  with  the   concurrence  of  the  State Government   the   said  college   was   granted   temporary affiliation   to   the   respondent-Lalit   Narain   Mithila University,  for  teaching  upto B.A.   (Pass)  level.   The affiliation  was granted for the academic sessions  1985-86. On 19.8.1986, pursuant to a decision taken by the Government of Bihar, Department of Education, 36 affiliated colleges of the  State  including the said college, were taken over  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

placed  under the management and control of the  respondent- Lalit  Narain  Mithila University.  Under Section 4 (14)  of the  Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the said university was  also  directed  to  take   charge  of  the  assets  and liabilities  of these colleges by entering into an agreement with  the  Governing  Body of the  concerned  college.   The requisite  resolution  of  the Governing Body  of  the  said women’s  college  agreeing to the said college  being  taken over  by the university was accordingly passed.  In  respect of creation of the posts in the said colleges and absorption of  the services of the existing teachers, the resolution of the  Government stated that a decision would be taken by the State Government after the report of a committee constituted by the State Government for inspecting the said colleges was received.   Until  a final decision was taken by  the  State Government, the teaching and non-teaching staff appointed in the  said  college was to continue as such.  Thereafter,  an inspection report dated 23.2.1987 was received in respect of some of the colleges including the said women’s college.  In the  inspection report, while dealing with the said  women’s college,  the post of Principal was shown as vacant and  the appellant  was described as Lecturer in Hindi Department and in-charge Principal.

     After  the  said  36 colleges  including  the  present women’s   college  were  made   constituent  units  of   the university,  a  request  was made by the university  to  the Bihar  College  Service Commission for the selection of  the Principals  of  the  colleges.  The  Commission,  after  due advertisement,   and  after   considering  the  applications received  and  interviewing  the candidates,  recommended  a panel  of  33  names for appointment as  Principals  of  the constituent units under the Lalit Narain Mithila University. The  appellant  did not apply for being considered  for  the post  of  Principal and hence she was not interviewed  along with  the  other  applicants.    Thereafter,  on   16.4.1988 respondent  No.   4  was  posted as Principal  of  the  said women’s  college.   The  appellant thereupon  filed  a  writ petition in the Patna High Court being Writ Petition No.2884 of  1988.   This writ petition has been  ultimately  decided against  the  appellant by the impugned judgment  and  order under which her claim for being declared as the Principal of the said college has been rejected.

     From  the  letters  of  appointment  produced  by  the appellant it can be seen that on 1st of September, 1971, the appellant  was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi in the  said college  which  was  then a private college on  a  temporary basis  for  six months.  She was selected by  the  Governing Body.   There is no mention of concurrence by the University Service  Commission.  Possibly, this was not required as the college  was private, and not affiliated to any  university. Thereafter  on 11.7.1977 she was appointed Principal of  the said college on a temporary basis by the Governing Body.  At this  time  also  the college was a  private  college.   The relevant  report of the inspection committee also  describes the status of the appellant as "In-charge Principal" and her substantive post as in the Department of Hindi.  The post of Principal is shown as ’vacant’.  The question is whether the appellant  is  entitled to be appointed as Principal of  the college  on  the  college getting affiliated  to  the  Lalit Narain  Mithila  University on 3.10.1985 or whether she  was eligible for such appointment when the said college became a constituent college of the university.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

     In  order to decide whether the appellant was eligible for being appointed as Principal with effect from 3.10.1985, it  is  necessary  to look at some provisions of  the  Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (which governs the Lalit Narain Mithila  University)  and  the Statutes  framed  thereunder. Section 2(c) of the said Act defines "affiliated College" to mean  "educational institution having received privileges of the  University according to the provisions of this Act  and University Statutes relating thereto".  Section 2(f) defines "Mahavidyalaya   or  College"  to   mean   "an   institution affiliated under the privileges of this Act or maintained or controlled  by  the University or institution maintained  by the  State  Government,  in  which,  instruction  is  given, subject to the provision contained in clause (16) of section 4,  to  the students of the University of graduate  standard under  conditions  prescribed in the Statutes." We  are  not concerned  with  the  proviso to  that  sub-section.   Under Section   2(i)  "Constituent  College"   means  a   teaching institution  maintained  or  controlled by  the  University. Section  36  of  the said Act provides for  the  framing  of Statutes.  Under the Statutes so framed relating to the mode of  appointment, pay-scale and qualifications for the  posts of  teachers  of  the university which came into  effect  on 22.7.1977,  the  qualifications  for the  appointment  of  a Principal   of  a  degree  college   are  laid  down.    The qualifications,  inter  alia, require not less  than  twelve years’  teaching  experience at least as a Lecturer  in  the degree   college/university  department.    Looking  to  the definition of "college" in the said Act, teaching experience has  to be in an affiliated college.  The affiliated college must  also  be  a  degree college.   Under  Section  2(s)  a "lecturer"  is defined to mean a teacher of a college or the University   possessing  such  qualifications   as  may   be prescribed  by  the Statutes.  Therefore, the experience  of teaching  as  a  lecturer  must  be  as  a  lecturer  in  an affiliated  degree  college  which also,  in  turn,  implies possession  of qualifications required under the Statutes of a  lecturer in a degree college.  On 3.10.1985 the appellant did  not have twelve years’ teaching experience in a  degree college.   With  effect from 1.6.1981, the said college  was granted   affiliation   only    upto   intermediate   level. Therefore,  the  experience of the appellant of teaching  in the  said  college  cannot  be counted for  the  purpose  of considering  her for the post of Principal.  It was only  on 3.10.1985  that  the  college was granted  affiliation  upto graduate  level.  Moreover, the appointment of the appellant was  as  a  lecturer  in a private  college  which  was  not affiliated  to  the  University  and   the  basis  of   such appointment  and  the qualifications which were required  by the  said  private college at the material time are  not  on record.  Therefore, her experience of teaching as a lecturer in  a  private college cannot be considered as of  the  kind prescribed  under  the Statutes read with the said Act.   On 16th  of  April, 1988, therefore, when respondent  No.4  was appointed  as  Principal of the said college, the  appellant did not have the requisite twelve years’ teaching experience as  a  Lecturer in a degree college which would qualify  her for the post of Principal.

     Before  the  High Court, reliance also seems  to  have been  placed  on earlier Statutes which were in force  until they  were  replaced by the said Statutes framed  under  the Bihar  State  Universities Act of 1976.  Under  the  earlier Statutes, the post of Principal in a degree college required at  least  ten years’ teaching experience in a  college,  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

which  at  least seven years must be in a degree college  or five  years as a Principal of an intermediate college.  Even under  the  earlier  qualifications, the appellant  was  not eligible.   She  did  not have five years of  experience  as Principal  of an intermediate college on 3.10.1985 when  the affiliation  was  granted  to the said college as  a  degree college.   She also did not have seven years’ experience  of teaching  in  an  affiliated degree  college.   Since  these Statutes  were replaced by the Statutes of 22.7.1977 at  the material  time,  we  need not examine the  earlier  Statutes further.

     The  appellant contended that her teaching  experience as temporary Hindi Lecturer and as temporary Principal right from  1.9.1971  should  be counted for the  purpose  of  her appointment  as  Principal.   The Statutes,  however,  which specify  experience  in  a   degree  college  or  university department,   have  been  framed   under  the  Bihar   State Universities  Act,  1976  under which a "college"  has  been defined  under Section 2(f) as an affiliated college and  an "affiliated  college"  has  been defined as  an  educational institution  which has received privileges of the University according  to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes.  A private  unaffiliated  college,  therefore,  does  not  come within  the  definition  of a college as defined  under  the Bihar  State  Universities Act, 1976.  The High  Court  has, therefore,  rightly held that the appellant was not eligible for  being  appointed as Principal of an  affiliated  degree college.  We also find it difficult to treat the appellant’s teaching experience from September, 1971 to October, 1985 as a  qualifying  experience for the purpose of the post  of  a Principal  of  a  degree   college.   The  Statutes  require teaching  experience  of  twelve years as a  lecturer  in  a degree college.  It is not at all clear from the material on record  that the said college was a degree college from 1971 to  1985.   In  fact,  when by  notification  of  6.10.1982, affiliation   was   granted  to   the  said   college   upto intermediate  level, it was expressly provided that teaching of  degree level should not be arranged in the said college. Secondly  the  appointment of the appellant initially  as  a lecturer  was  also on a temporary basis and her  subsequent appointment  as  Principal  was also on a  temporary  basis. Looking  to  all the facts and circumstances the High  Court has  rightly  come to the conclusion that the appellant  was not  eligible  for being appointed as Principal of the  said college.

     The  appellant  also contended before the  High  Court that  by the time the writ petition was decided in  December 1991,  she  had  acquired  the  requisite  experience.   The Division  Bench has rightly rejected this contention.   From the  date  of  affiliation of the said college as  a  degree college,  namely, 3.10.1985, the appellant had not completed either seven or twelve years of teaching in a degree college upto December, 1991.

     The  appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in State  of Orissa & Anr.  v.  N.N.Swamy & Ors.  ([1977] 2 SCC 508)  where, in the case of a private institution which  was taken  over  by  the  Government, the Court  said  that  the previous teaching experience of Readers should be considered for  their  being  appointed in  the  Government  institute. Their  previous  experience was not taken into account  only because they drew a lower pay.  Since lower pay had no nexus to  the purpose, the Court directed the teaching  experience

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

as  Reader prior to the take-over of the institution by  the Government,  to be taken into account.  The present case  is not  comparable to the said case.  The Statutes of the Bihar State   Universities  Act,  1976   clearly   prescribe   the qualifications  required  of  a Principal of  an  affiliated college.   The terms used in the statute are defined in  the Act  itself;   and it is by reason of the provisions of  the Statutes  which are applicable in the present case that  the appellant does not qualify for appointment as Principal.

     The  appeal  is,  therefore, dismissed.   There  will, however, be no order as to costs.