Judgment:
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner, who was earlier made professor in charge of Langta Baba College, Mirzaganj in the District of Giridih but was removed from the said post of professor Incharge on 2nd September 2004, challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 5618/2002. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22/11/2002 by a Single Bench of this Court by remitting the matter back to the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Kazaribagh, directing him that if any representation is filed by the petitioner then after hearing the parties he will determine the question as to who is the senior most teacher of the College and who should be made professor Incharge of the college
3. Pursuant to the order in the said writ petition, the Vice Chancellor by order dated 08/04/2003 as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition, considering the fact that the petitioner Binod Kumar Rai was removed from the post of Professor Incharge of the College w.e.f. 02/09/2003 on the allegation of a number of charges against him and, therefore, he directed the Adhoc Committee to investigate the charges leveled against: the petitioner Binod Kumar Rai. The petitioner was also directed to handover the charge of the office of the Professor Incharge to one Sri Arjun Prasad Rai, Lecturer in Mathemnlics. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the said order of the Vice Chancellor by filing WPS No. 2462/2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on 06/07/2004 by setting aside the order directing the Adhoe Committee to investigate into the matter, But, however, the matte was rrmmulnl to the Vice Chancellor to once again deal with the matter himself.
4. Thereafter, the Vice Chancellor passed an order on 05/03/2005 as contained in Ahnexure-5 to this writ petition holding that all the teachers working in the college were on temporary basis and were continuing against unsanctioned post beyond six months violating the established norms of appointment and no teacher was appointed and was working on substantive basis on the recommendation of the Commission against sanctioned posts. Under these circumstances, the Vice Chancellor observed that the Governing Body of the college may either on adhoc or regular basis take work of Professor Incharge amongst from the teachers appointed on temporary basis keeping in view their quality of work, integrity and also administrative capability in the larger interest, of the institution.
5. The petitioner again challenged the said order of the Vice Chancellor by filing WPS No. 2445/2005 but the same writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge against which, L.P.A. No. 491/2005 was filed by the petitioner and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 12/10/2006 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, held that the Vice Chancellor was to decide as to who was the senior most Professor of the College and who was competent to be appointed as Professor Incharge but the Vice Chancellor without going into the report submitted by the new Committee, rejected the claim of the appellant, which was beyond the scope of the enquiry. Accordingly, the orders of the Vice Chancellor as well as of the learned Single Judge were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Vice Chancellor with a direction to him to go through the report submitted by the newly constituted Committee and decide the second issue in accordance with law as early as possible.
6. Chancellor passed an order on 18/0 1/2007 maintaining earlier order passed by his predecessors Vice Chancellor on 05/03/2005. This order of the Vice Chancellor is under challenge in this writ application.
7. From the above facts, it is clear that the main grievance and dispute is as to who should he made Professor Incharge of the College being the senior most professor. The claim of the petitioner for being made Professor Incharge is based on his claim that he is the senior most teachers in the aforesaid College.
8. It is relevant to note that the petitioner himself has filed an interlocutory application in this writ petition stating therein that during the pendency of the writ petition a regular Principal has already been appointed by the Adhoc Governing Body of the College. The petitioner says that the said appointment of the Adhoc Governing Body is illegal.
9. The point in issue in this writ petition is quite different. But, now, in view of the subsequent development that when a regular Principal has already been appointed by the Adhoc Governing Body of the College, the question as to who should be made Professor Incharge of the College now, does not arise. Therefore, the issue raised in this writ petition now does not survive at all.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the made by the Adhoc Governing Body of the College, he is at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate Forum available to him under the law.