2004 (10) TMI 579 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether absorption of about 4,000 employees working on teaching and non-teaching posts in 40 colleges affiliated to various universities which were taken over as constituent colleges in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Universities Act, 1976 valid?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absorption of employees in converted constituent colleges.
2. Validity of government orders dated 01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989.
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the State Government versus universities in the matter of absorption.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions and non-obstante clauses in the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976.
5. Validity of appointments and qualifications of employees.
6. Contempt petitions regarding non-payment of salaries.
7. Impleadment and intervention applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Absorption of Employees in Converted Constituent Colleges:
The core issue revolves around the absorption of approximately 4,000 employees working in 40 colleges that were converted from affiliated to constituent colleges under the Bihar Universities Act, 1976. The State of Bihar decided to convert these colleges in phases, and the universities were instructed to pass resolutions to take over the assets and liabilities of these colleges. The controversy arose due to the subsequent decision by the State Government on 12.6.1987, which led to claims from various categories of employees for absorption into the services of the constituent colleges.

2. Validity of Government Orders Dated 01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989:
The State Government issued orders on 01.2.1988 and 18.12.1989 regarding the absorption of employees. The validity of these orders was questioned, with arguments that they lacked proper Cabinet approval and were not formally expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166 of the Constitution. However, the Enquiry Commission found that the order dated 01.2.1988 was authorized by the Cabinet, and a subsequent formal resolution was issued in the name of the Governor. The Supreme Court declined to question the validity of these orders, noting that the State itself could not resile from its decisions without formally withdrawing or rescinding them.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the State Government Versus Universities:
The High Court held that the universities had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4(I)(14) of the Act to decide on the absorption of employees in the converted constituent colleges. The State Government contended that it had the power to sanction posts and appointments under Section 35 of the Act. The Supreme Court harmonized the two provisions, stating that Section 4(I)(14) operates in the field of absorption of staff of taken-over institutions, while Section 35 applies to the creation of posts and appointments in affiliated colleges. The universities were given the power to review and decide on the absorption of staff, taking into account the regularity of appointments.

4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Non-Obstante Clauses:
The non-obstante clauses in Section 4(I)(14) and Section 35 of the Act were interpreted harmoniously. Section 4(I)(14) allows universities to take over institutions and decide on the absorption of staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act. Section 35 requires prior approval of the State Government for creating posts and making appointments in affiliated colleges. The Supreme Court concluded that these provisions operate in different fields and do not conflict with each other.

5. Validity of Appointments and Qualifications of Employees:
The Enquiry Commission found instances of manipulation and fabrication of records in the affiliated colleges. It recommended rejecting the revised list of employees submitted by the screening committee on 30.1.1987. The Supreme Court accepted the Commission's report, stating that the decision on the absorption of employees should be based on the findings of the Commission and the legal position explained in the judgment.

6. Contempt Petitions Regarding Non-Payment of Salaries:
Several contempt petitions were filed by employees claiming non-payment of salaries. The Supreme Court found that the non-disbursement of salaries was justified due to the serious doubts regarding the validity of appointments. The contempt petitions were dismissed, and no punitive action was taken against the authorities.

7. Impleadment and Intervention Applications:
Numerous applications for impleadment and intervention were filed by employees objecting to the Commission's report. The Supreme Court rejected these applications, stating that the universities should take a final decision on the absorption of employees based on the Commission's report and the Court's judgment.

Conclusions:
1. The High Court's interpretation of Section 4(I)(14) and Section 35 is confirmed.
2. The Enquiry Commission's report is accepted, and all objections are rejected.
3. Employees in list no. (i) (appointees against sanctioned posts) shall be absorbed.
4. Universities shall decide on the absorption of employees in list no. (ii) (appointees against posts recommended by universities up to the cut-off date).
5. Employees in list no. (iii) (appointees against posts recommended after the cut-off date or without recommendations) have no right to be considered for absorption.
6. Universities shall complete the absorption process within four months.
7. The appeal, special leave petition, and contempt petitions are dismissed. Applications for impleadment and interventions are rejected.