Dr. Ravi Prakash Babloo vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

This Court has heard learned Advocate(s) for the petitioner, as also the learned Advocate(s) for the State, University and the Hon’ble Chancellor.

The controversy and the contest surrounding the legal validity of the order of deputation of the petitioners issued under the signature of the Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra (in short as ‘the University’), as the incharge Principal, in newly constituted Government Degree College has arisen on account of coming into force of Resolution No. 633 dated 30.04.2026 wherein the State Government resolved to establish 211 Degree Colleges in such Blocks where there is no Degree College. By the resolution aforenoted, the State Government while declaring the Rajkiya Degree Colleges, as the constituent Unit of the University under whose jurisdiction the said College situates, created 32 teaching and 12 non-teaching post in each College. In order to carry out the decision of establishment of Degree Colleges, the State Government issued guidelines vide Letter no. 637 dated 30.04.2026 for operation of the Degree Colleges with a stipulation that the University shall post/depute a Principal in each College forthwith.

For the said purpose, the University vide letter no. 5261-R dated 12.05.2026 sought option from teachers for their deputation as Principal Incharge in Degree Colleges till 14.05.2026. On receipt of the options from teachers of different Colleges, a three men Committee of Senior Professors was constituted to consider and made recommendation in favour of the teachers for their posting/deputation as Principal. On 27.05.2026, a notification vide letter no.5343-I was issued for posting/deputation of 28 Principal Incharge and they have been directed to resume their charges by 01.06.2026. Upon issuance of the above referred notification, the University has received various applications and to respond and consider their requests, a three member committee of Senior Professors was further constituted vide Memo No. 5359-Est-I dated 03.06.2026 to examine and scrutinize their applications. In pursuant to the recommendation, a modified notification, as contained in letter no. 5362-R dated 04.06.2026 was issued for posting/deputation of Principal Incharge. To ensure compliance of the notification, letters/reminders have been issued from time to time to all the concerned to take over the charge of their respective post of Principal Incharge in Degree College forthwith. Despite the letters and the reminders, when the teachers have not taken over their respective charges, rather they were indulged in making correspondences and filing application, the Principal Secretary to the Hon’ble Chancellor has come out with letter no. 78/ACS dated 14.06.2026 that no representation for transfer/change of location shall be considered at any level until further orders.

In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners, who have been holding the post of Professor/ Associate Professor in different subjects in constituent degree colleges of the University have preferred their writ petitions seeking quashing of the impugned notification, as contained in letter no. 5343-I dated 27.05.2026 as well as letter no. 5362-R dated 04.06.2026 whereby the petitioners along with others have been deputed as incharge Principal of the Degree Colleges. The petitioners also seek a direction upon the respondents to allow them to continue in the services of J.P. University, Chapra, more precisely against the post, the petitioners have been posted before the issuance of the impugned order. The challenge has also been made to the show-cause notice issued against the petitioners and the consequential action taken against them.

While assailing the impugned orders, learned Advocate(s) for the petitioners, at the outset, have taken this Court through the Statute for the appointment of Principal in Constituent Colleges governed by the State Universities Act, 1976, especially Statute 3.2.6 and submitted that the deputation of the petitioners as incharge Principal is unsustainable in the eye of law, inasmuch, as the said Statute obligates the Vice-chancellor of the University to act strictly in prescription of Statute 3.2.6. However, despite the clear mandate, the impugned order of deputation has been passed without obtaining their consent. Referring to the said Statute, it is further contended that in constituent Colleges, the Principal may be appointed amongst the Professor, Associate Professor in the University by the Vice-chancellor after obtaining their consent till such period. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have never accorded any consent, rather they have filed repeated representation with clear explanation that their deputation as Principal in the newly constituted Degree Colleges would not be in the academic interest of the College where they have been discharging their duties, besides they shall face undue hardship at the twilight year of their life.

The impugned order of deputation, in the submission of learned Advocate(s) for the petitioners, is in the teeth of judgment and order of this Court dated 13.01.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21776 of 2014. Referring thereto, it is argued that a Bench of this Court having taken notice of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Inder Singh & Ors. : (1997) 8 SCC 372 has underscored that the State cannot compel the employee to go on deputation without the consent of the person so deputed. The order impugned is further said to be discriminatory, as on receipt of the application of some of the teachers, the respondent University has modified the earlier order of deputation, but even upon repeated representations filed by the petitioners explaining the entire facts, their cases have been turned down. The deputation of the petitioners in the new established Rajkiya Degree College is said to be beyond their cadre, besides it is further submitted that in no circumstances, the Rajkiya Degree Colleges are said to be a constituent unit of the University in absence of any Gazette notification and the procedures required to be followed before declaring it constituent one.

While the matter was pending consideration, this Court, vide order dated 02.07.2026 taking note of the fact that in case of few others consideration on their representations have been made, while the case of the petitioners has not been considered, directed the Vice-chancellor of the University to consider their representations and dispose of the same. In pursuance of such direction, the representations of the petitioners were duly considered, however, their claim was negated, which orders were also put to challenge by filing different interlocutory applications.

During the pendency of the writ petitions, certain orders have also been passed whereby the show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners and further directed the concerned Colleges not to allow the petitioners and others to mark the attendance with effect from the show-cause notice dated 27.06.2026, besides their salary has also been stopped.

Assailing such orders, learned Advocate(s) for the petitioners submitted that besides it suffers from vice of arbitrariness, there is complete absence of mind and the action of the respondent University is contrary to the Statute. Depriving the petitioners from putting their signatures and stoppage of salary is said to be a punishment without there being any proceeding or the authorities having jurisdiction to do so. The action of the respondent is further said to be in defiance to the order of this Court dated 13.07.2026, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9528 of 2026, wherein this Court in identical matter shown his expectation that concerned respondents shall not give effect to the impugned order till the final order is passed in the interest of justice. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order and the facts, the respondent authorities passed the order restraining the petitioners and others to put their signatures and deprived them form their legitimate right to receive salary.

Per contra, Mr. Bajrangi Lal, learned Advocate for the University submitted that the act of the petitioners is nothing, but an indiscipline; besides blatant disregard to the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor as well as Registrar of the University and the respective Colleges. The resolution no. 633 dated 30.04.2026 clearly states that the Rajkiya Degree College would be constituent College of the University under whose jurisdiction all the said College situates. The petitioners have only been deputed and posted to the constituent unit of the University to carry out the terms of resolution, issued by the State Government after creation of the posts. The petitioners have been served notices time to time, but neither they have filed any reply nor they have taken their respective charge of Incharge Principal of different Degree Colleges.

The representations of the petitioners were duly considered by a three men committee of Senior Professors, which was duly constituted to examine such representations and on being found no merit in their claim, the committee recommended for their posting/deputation as Incharge Principal. On account of not taking over charge, the academic and administrative work of the newly constituted Degree Colleges have put to halt. The entire exercise undertaken by the Vice-Chancellor is carried out in exercise of the power vested in him by virtue of Section 10(11) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’) which clearly stipulates that the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general control over the educational arrangement of University and shall be responsible for the discipline of the University, besides he is empowered to take all steps which are necessary for maintaining the academic standard and administrative discipline of the University.

Mr. Bajrangi Lal, learned Advocate for the University, adverting to the aforesaid facts further referred to the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioners and other identically situated teachers were invited their options before deputation. However, in pursuant to letter no. 5261(R) dated 12.05.2026, which was made it clear that in case of less number of applicants, the University shall be at liberty to depute any of its teacher to the newly constituted degree colleges on the post of Incharge Principal. While giving effect to the Government resolution, the University has also given primacy to the seniority so that the newly created degree Colleges may run smoothly in all the manner.

Referring to a decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shubha Sinha Vs. Veer Kuwar Singh University : 2008 (1) PLJR 576 it is further argued that similar challenge, which has been raised in the present writ petitions, was under consideration in the aforenoted Letters Patent Appeal that, the deputation was made without the consent of the incumbent. However, the learned Division Bench has clarified that deputation in legal sense envisages posting from one department or establishment to another, both of which are under different discipline of employer. But under the same employer within his own establishment under same discipline no deputation can be envisaged. If under education department, here it is a University, it has authority to transfer teacher from one College or Faculty to another College or Faculty which is not affiliated but its own College for such posting the term deputation is inappropriate.

After having read the relevant paragraphs, he further submits that if an employee is transferred under the same employer for discharging his duties at different place in ordinary course, no question of deputation arises.

It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the University that the learned Division Bench clearly ruled that merely because the expression deputation has been used but which in fact is only with regard to power to transfer, its employee from one College to another, as ruled by the Court, would not make difference in the nature of the order of transfer of the incumbent from one college to another on deputation.

So far the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the action of the respondent University in restraining them to mark their attendance and depriving them from their salary, it is further argued that since the petitioners have failed to respond to their show-causes, besides they have failed to take over the charge of Incharge Principal of their respective Colleges, the University has been compelled to pass such order. Moreover, in pursuant to the order of this Court, their respective representations were duly considered, however, on being found no merit, the same has been turned down.

Having heard the rival submissions of learned Advocate(s) for the respective parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record before adjudicating the legality of the impugned order, this Court needs to clarify the legal position regarding deputation that, it can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh & Ors. (supra) while clarifying the concept of deputation and its consequence has clearly speltout as follows:

It would also be pertinent to refer here a decision in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh Vs. State of U.P. Ors. : AIR 2006 SC 2432 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the State cannot compel an employee to go on deputation from its parent department to another public sector undertaking unless a statutory rule exists in this behalf. In absence of such a rule, no employer can force an employee to join the services of another employer. Coming to the Statute 3.2.6 of the Statute for the appointment of Principal in constituent Colleges governed by the Act, 1976, it would be worth benefiting to quote the relevant prescription hereunder:

On a bare reading of the above referred Statute, there is no iota of confusion that the Vice-Chancellor is empowered that in case of non-availability of Professor / Associate Professor in the concerned College, the Principal may be appointed from among the Professor / Associate Professor in the University, after obtaining their consent, but in the opinion of this Court only for a period specified.

It would also be relevant to take note of that a constituent College, as has been defined under the Act, 1976 only denotes a teaching institution maintained and controlled by the University. However, a bare reading of Section 3(4) of the Act, 1976 it clearly mandates that no educational institution beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University, shall, except by an order of the State Government published in the official gazette, form a part of or be admitted to the privileges of the University.

The contention of the learned Advocate for the University that altogether 28 newly established Colleges falling within the jurisdiction of J.P. University shall be known as Rajkiya Degree College of respective Blocks and be declared as a constituent Unit of the University in absence of any gazette notification would not be in conformity with Section 4 of the Act, 1976. Hence, the contention of the learned Advocate for the University that, for the purpose of transfer from one constituent unit to another constituent unit, the consent is not sine qua non and since it is a transfer under the same employer for discharging at their duties in transferred post it may not be treated as deputation, rather a simple transfer does not persuade this Court and thus held to be untenable in law as well as in fact.

The very essence of the deputation, as has been clarified by the several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court read with Statute 3.2.6 leaves no room for confusion that before putting the incumbent under deputation what is required, is the consent of the deputationist and for a period prescribed.

In the case at hand, there is specific contention of all the petitioners that at no point of time they have ever given option for their posting as Incharge Principal in newly constituted degree colleges, besides at no point of time their consent have been sought for. In absence of the consent of the petitioners, the order of deputation would not be in conformity with the specific prescription of the Statute or the settled position of law.

This Court has also noticed the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University whereby the representation of the petitioners have been turned down, sans any specific denial to the submission regarding non-observance of the Statute, especially Statute 3.2.6. Mere contention of the Vice-Chancellor that the consent of the petitioners is not a mandatory requirement under determinative factor for posting, especially in exercise of power under Section 10(11) of the Act, 1976 in the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court is unsustainable in law as well as on facts, when the impugned order clearly denotes that the petitioners are being deputed to the newly constituted degree Colleges.

It is also worth noting here that the exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor of the University under Section 10(11) of the Act, 1976 is in essence vested to keep general control over the education arrangement of the University and necessary for maintaining the academic standard. However, the above referred power in no circumstances is said to have been exercised within the prescriptions provided under the Act, 1976, once the Statute 3.2.6 clearly prescribes the procedures required to be followed while issuing an order of deputation; it cannot be given a go-bye. The power under Section 10(11) of the Act, 1976 is restricted within the University and in no manner it could be interpreted to mean conferring power upon the Vice-Chancellor to send a teacher on deputation to a College, which has not even been legally declared as a constituent College of the University in absence of Gazette publication. Moreover, in the case at hand, the order talks about deputation and not a transfer. In such, circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out a case of interference.

After having proper deliberation of the relevant materials on record, as also in view of the submissions advanced and the settled legal position, this Court finds that the impugned orders of deputation as Incharge Principal of newly constituted Government Degree Colleges, qua the petitioners, are unsustainable in absence of their due consent and the discussions made hereinabove. Accordingly, the order as contained in letter dated 27.05.2026 as well as letter dated 04.06.2026 to the extent it relates to the petitioners are hereby held to be unsustainable and set aside. Further, the order of the Vice-Chancellor passed on the representations of the petitioners negating their claim also held to be unsustainable and accordingly set aside.

Upon setting aside the impugned orders, any consequential order passed against the petitioners depriving them to put their signatures and withholding of salary also stood quashed and cancelled.

Both the writ petitions are hereby allowed.