In Navin Kumar @ Naveen Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 20-page long judgement dated July 202, 2026, wherein, he set aside order of Vice-chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, terms it "wholly illegal and without jurisdiction". The other six respondents were: 2. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, 4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, 5. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, 6. The Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and 7. The Prof-Incharge, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand, District Sitamarhi.
Justice Kumar concluded:"....this Court is of the conscious opinion that the impugned order of dissolution of the Governing Body taken by the Vice-chancellor in its reasoned order dated 22.05.2026 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, thus hereby set aside. Once the order of dissolution of the Governing Body does not survive, the consequential order for constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee would also be termed as illegal. However, the Court would not enter into the other aspects of the matter and the pleas taken by the learned Advocates regarding constitution and continuity of the Ad-hoc Committee on any other ground, as the same is not required to be dealt with at present. 29. This Court, however, in the facts of the case, further makes it clear that the order of this Court would not come in the way of the Vice-chancellor/University to deliberate upon and refer the matter to the Syndicate to take appropriate action/decision in the matter of continuation/dissolution of the Governing Body after following the mandate of Clause 28 of Statute 32 of the Act with the clear observance of the principles of natural justice, if the circumstances necessitate the same."
The petitioner, an elected Secretary of the Governing College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi, constituted under Section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, read with Statute 32, had approached the High Court being aggrieved with the reasoned order dated May 22, 2026 issued by the Vice-chancellor of the B.R.A. Bihar University under the signature of the Registrar of the University whereby and whereunder the Governing Body of the College was dissolved. He had also challenged order dated May 22, 2026 issued by the Registrar of the University by which Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted for the College, in question. The petitioner had also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restore the Governing Body constituted by Memo dated May 27, 2023.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the newly constituted Ad-hoc Committee submitted its report, regarding the action taken by the erstwhile Governing Body under letter dated June 23, 2026. Based upon such report the University by Memo dated June 25, 2026 constituted an enquiry committee to submit further reports on different points, the same was also challenged by filing an interlocutory application.
The College, in question, namely, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi was established on July 10, 1965 and in course of time, the college was given permanent affiliation up to Honours level in the year 2009. In terms with Section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 which mandates for constitution of a Governing Body for Management and Administration of each affiliated College, other than a college owned and maintained by the State Government or College establishment by a Minority Committee or an affiliated Technical or Medical College, as also read with Statute 32, a Governing Body was duly constituted for smooth functioning of the College, in question; and the petitioner, who was inducted as donor member further elected as Secretary of the Governing Body by the approval of the Vice-chancellor. The dispute began in the meeting of the Governing body dated October 26, 2024 wherein the Professor incharge, namely, Dr. Om Prakash Singh, who was the senior most teacher of the College and was to retire on October 31, 2024, his period was extended in the light of on going 4/20
NAAC Accreditation Process. The information in this regard was been given to the Registrar of the University by letter dated October 28, 2024 seeking approval for extension of service of incharge Principal of the College. Pending approval for extension of the services of Dr. Om Prakash Singh as Professor-cum-incharge Principal of the College, The petitioner being the Secretary of the Governing Body submitted his reply on December 16, 2025 mentioning that information regarding extension of service of Dr. Om Prakash Singh had already been communicated on October 28, 2024. It was made clear that the College was bound to follow the direction of the University. On receipt of the show-cause notice, the Professor Incharge-cum-Principal Dr. Om Prakash Singh tendered his resignation on December 20, 2025, which was duly accepted by the Governing Body in its meeting held on January 4, 2026.
Dissatisfied with the response of the petitioner, the Vice-chancellor of the University vide its order dated
May 22, 2026 issued under the signature of University dissolved the Governing Body with immediate
effect and consequently all powers, authorities and financial control of the said Governing Body came to be ceased. In pursuance of the impugned order, a consequential order dated May 22, 2026 was also issued and an Ad-hoc committee was also constituted to manage the academic administration and financial affairs of the College until further orders or until constitution of a regular Governing Body in accordance with law, besides a direction to constitute an enquiry committee for examining the operation of accounts, utilization of grants as well as financial decision undertaken during the illegally extended tenure of the retired Principal.
The petitioner's senior counsel pointed out that the erstwhile Governing Body of the College was dissolved by an authority, which had no sanction under the law. It is only the Syndicate empowered under Clause 28 of the Statute 32 of the Act, which may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice- chancellor dissolve a Governing Body and order for its reconstitution; provided, the Syndicate has given a reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to show-cause against such action. At no point in time, any show-cause notice or reasonable opportunity was given by the Syndicate and the order of dissolution was passed by the Vice-chancellor, which was wholly illegal and against the teeth of all the prescriptions provided under Clause 28 of Statute 32. It is a settled law that in terms of Section 67 of the Act, 1976, the College or the University shall in no case extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employees after he attains the age of superannuation.
The senior counsel drew on decision of the High Court's Division Bench in Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 977 of 2024), wherein, by its judgment/order dated October 29, 2024, the provisions of Clause 28 of Statute 32, it highlighted cthat the Vice Chancellor does not have the competence or power to suspend or dissolve a properly constituted Governing Body.
The counsel also relied on reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan : (1989) 3 SCC 132, wherein the Court observed that the statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It was ab initio void and cannot be ratified.
Justice Kumar observed:"....it is quite evident and imperative that it is the Syndicate, which may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice-chancellor dissolve a Governing Body on account of the reasons mentioned therein, provided before the order of dissolution of the Governing body, the Syndicate shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to show-cause against such action. 21. Since the mandate of the above noted prescription of law is very much clear that it is the Syndicate, who shall take a decision with regard to the dissolution of the Governing Body and, in fact, this position has not even been
disputed by any of the party, it need not require further emphasis that the order of dissolution of the Governing Body is to be taken in terms with Clause 28 of Statute 32 of the Act."
The Court examined as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrants immediate exercise of the emergency power assigned to the Vice-chancellor under Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976. Section 10(12) of the Act empowers the Vice-chancellor to take an immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act, he/she shall take such action as he deems fit, when the Syndicate or Academic Council is not in Session and he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring its intervention.The Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no emergency situation had arisen, which required invocation of Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976.
Justice Kumar observed:"Undoubtedly, the power is vested with the Vice-chancellor to deal with the emergent circumstances, but in the present case, the exercise of such power appears to be wholly unwarranted."
No comments:
Post a Comment