Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.:— Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record.
2. Filing of persistent writ applications, one after the other, is not the answer for the petitioners to overcome the problem they are facing for non-payment of their salary because State Government has never recognized their appointment in the very first place at any point of time.
3. By virtue of the earlier direction issued in CWJC No. 4370 of 2000 and 4893 of 2000, a detailed consideration was made by the Secretary of the Higher Education Department, Government of Bihar and claim of the petitioners was duly rejected on 13.8.2003 This order is Annexure-9. No doubt this order became the subject matter of challenge in Annexure-10 but reading of Annexure-10 does not show that Anneuxre-9 in any manner was interfered with and set aside or the reasoning given therein was found to be faulty. But an opening was given to the petitioners by asking the University to consider their case in view of recommendation of the Chancellor.
4. Regularization by the University is not going to beget any relief to the petitioners even if their recommendations have been made at one time or the other. For after all, so long section 35 of the Bihar Universities Act remains the final authority is vested in the State Government because every penny which is spent in the working of the University accrues from the public funding done by the State and not by the University. In the State of Bihar no University is capable of meeting its expenses even for a day, leave alone meeting the requirements of payment of salary to the teachers or other employees.
5. Counsel for the State has taken a stand in the several counter affidavits which have been filed that the University is also playing game, not providing proper information and at times overreaching if not breaching the direction which may have been issued in this regard from time to time. But after all, the University also is under the State as per the provisions of the Act and the University cannot become an appointing or regularizing authority at its own level or domain.
6. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure-D, which is part of the first counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. This is a universal direction to all the Managing Committees of such affiliated Colleges which were going to be taken over that no appointments or removal would be made after 12.7.1980 However, in gross violation of such direction, it is widely known that many a Managing Committees, to pack the institution with its men, for many considerations have made appointments indiscriminately and they are now looking for regularization of such engaged persons by filing repeated writ petition in the High Court.
7. So far as these petitioners are concerned, majority of them seem to have been engaged after that circular contained in Annexure-D, which is dated 24.7.1980 If engagement or employment has been obtained by the petitioners in connivance with the managing committee without following any procedure, mere long association with the institution will not create an obligation upon the State to make payments to them whatever be their assertion or claim with regard to continued period of service.
8. The obligation, however, of the Managing Committee if at all remains, the petitioners can direct their claim to such management and will not encumber the State in any way, since University is not capable to make payment unless it diverts fund from other allocations, which in any way will be per say illegal action of the University.
9. Writ applications have no merit. They are dismissed.