PATNA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus DR. (MRS.) AMITA TIWARI

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 27-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
PATNA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. (MRS.) AMITA TIWARI 
AUGUST 27, 1997. 
(SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 : 
Sections 9(7)(ii) and 74. 
Regula1isation-Ad hoc appointment as Lecturer--Not possessing 
qualification for regular appointment provided under the relevant Act-Order 
of Chancellor to regularise the services on compassionate grounds-Held, 
cannot be sustained. 
Power of the Chancellor to issue directions under Section 9(7)(ii) of 
the Act to the Universities in "administrative and academic interest''-Order 
passed by the Chancellor directing the University to regularise the services of 
the Respondent on compassionate grounds" (in view of respondent's resigning 
A 
B 
c 
D 
her previous job to join the ad hoc engagement)-Held, not protected by E 
Section 9(7)(ii) of the Act-Further held, such order was also not protected 
by Section 74 which pennitted the Chancellor to issue an order ''for removal • 
of difficulties" because exercise of power under Section 74 has to be consistent 
with the Act and the Statutes of the University. 
The Respondent, who held degrees of B.Sc. (Home Science) and M.A. 
in Sociology, was working as lecturer in college X of the appellant-Univer-
sity, in the Home Science department. She applied to college Y for appoint-
ment as lecturer in Home Science and was appointed as such on ad hoc 
basis. At the relevant time the statute provided the qualification for 
appointment as lecturer P.G. Degree in Home Science or in an "allied 
subject''., The respondent did possess P.G. degree in an "allied subject", viz. 
Sociology. Subsequently the statute passed by the University prescribed 
post graduate qualification in Home Science. The respondent did not 
possess the requisite qualification as prescribed by the statute. A Commit-
F 
G 
tee headed by Vice Chancellor and other top officials opined that the H 
571 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent fulfilled the qualification laid down by the UGC and the State 
Government. The Chancellor under Section 9(7) (ii) of the Bihar State 
Universities Act passed orders for her regularising services on compas· 
sionate grounds viz. she had resigned from the earlier college as lecturer 
to join the instant service. However her services were not regularised. 
B Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition for implementation of the 
orders of the Chancellor for regularisation and it was allowed by the High 
Court. Hence this appeal by the University. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The case of the respondent cannot be brought within 
sub-clause 7 (ii) of section 9 of the Bihar State Universities Act. The orders 
in question are not passed in administrative exigencies or in academic 
interest. The order of the Chancellor directed that the respondent's ser· 
vices are to be regularised purely on "compassionate grounds" (as she was 
D working as lecturer in a different college of the appellant-University before 
joining the instant job of lecturer). In fact, in the same Section 9, sub-
clause (4) says that the Chancellor may annul any proceedings or order 
of the University which is not in conformity with the Act, the Statutes, 
Ordinances, or Regulations. In that setting, it is not possible to hold that 
E sub-clause 7 (ii) of Section 9 would permit the Chancellor to pass an order 
"in the administrative or academic interest" if the order is to be in conflict 
with the Act or Statute. No provision has been brought to the notice of this 
Court which permits the Chancellor to direct regularisation of the services 
F 
of a lecturer un "compassionate grounds". In the present case the respon-
dent was appointed on ad hoc basis till regular appointments were to be 
made and regular appointments required a qualification which the respon· 
dent did not possess and further, regular appointment could not be made 
except by consulting the relevant Service Commission. [578-E·H] 
2. Section 74 of the Act deals l\ith a situation before the constitution 
G of the authorities of the Universities and apart from the limited scope of 
its application, consultation with the Vice Chancellor was also necessary. 
The present case does not fall within the limited scope of section 74 nor is 
there any finding that the Chancellor was feeling it necessary to pass such 
an order under Section 74. In any event, orders under Section 74 must be 
H consistent with the provisions 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.