Prof. (Dr) Rabindra Singh vs The J.P. University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9715 of 2026
======================================================
Dr. Ravi Prakash Babloo, Son of Late Om Prakash Sinha, Resident of Village
and Post - Belsand, Police Station - Madhopur, Distict - Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Jai Prakash University Through its Registrar, Chapra
4. The Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra
5. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra
6. The Financial Advisor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra
7. The Finance Officer, Jai Prakash University, Chapra
8. The Three Men Committee constituted for proper deputation Of Professors/
Associate Professors in newly establish Government Degree College,
Chapra through its Co-Ordinator-cum-College Inspector, Jai Prakash
University, Chapra namely Prof (Dr.) Uday Arvind.
9. Prof (Dr.) Rana Vikram Singh, Dean Student Welfare, Jai Prakash
University, Chapra-cum-Member of the Three Men Committee for
deputation of Professors/ Associate Professors in newly establish
Government Degree College, Chapra
10. Prof (Dr.) Gunsagar Yadav, Co-Ordinator, College Development Council, Jai
Prakash University, Chapra-cum-Member of the Three Men Committee
Constituted for deputation of Professors/ Associate Professors in newly
establish Government Degree Colleges, Chapra.
11. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Chancellor, Universities of Bihar,
Patna.
12. The District Magistrate, Chapra.
13. The Principal, Ram Jaipal College, Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9278 of 2026
======================================================
1. Prof. (Dr) Rabindra Singh, S/o Late Kapildeo Singh, R/o 266/07,
Parashuram Colony, North of Printing Press, Sandalpur, Mahendru, P.S.-
Alamganj, District- Panta, presently working as Professor, Chemistry,
University Department of Chemistry, J.P. University, Chapra.
2. Prof (Dr) Sanjay Kumar, S/o Late Chandeshwar Singh, R/o Jay Prakash
Nagar, near Mithila Sharan Singh, P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna 800025,

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
2/19
presently working as Professor, Chemistry, Rajendra College, Chapra, J.P.
University, Chapra.
3. Prof (Dr) Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Late Rambabu Singh, R/o village Amraur
Kiratpur, Ward No. 3, P.S. - Singhaul, District - Begusarai, presently
working as Professor, Political Science, University Department of Political
Science, J.P. University, Chapra.
4. Prof (Dr) Dr. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Late Amresh Pathak, R/o V/25, Vidyapuri,
south of Central School, Kankarbagh, P.S. - Patrakar Nagar, District Patna,
presently working as Professor, Political. Science, University Dept. of Pol.
Science, J.P. University, Chapra.
5. Dr. Rajiv Kumar Mishra, S/o- Late Harishchandra Mishra, R/o- Bahadurpur
Patori, P.S. - Patori, District- Samastipur, presently working as Associate
Professor, Maths, Rajendra College, Chapra, J.P. University, Chapra.
6. Dr. Amrendra Kumar, S/o- Late Radha Ballabh Sharma, R/o Village -
Hajipur, Dhangawan, P.S. - Kako, District - Jehanabad, presently working as
Associate Professor, Hindi, Jagdam College, Chapra, J.P.University, Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The J.P. University Chapra through its Registrar.
2. The Vice Chancellor, J.P. University, Chapra.
3. The Registrar, J.P. University, Chapra.
4. The State Government of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan,
Patna.
5. The Honble Chancellor of Universities, Lok Bhawan, Patna- 800022,
through its Additional Chief Secretary.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9715 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Parul Priya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG-9
For the JP University : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Chancellor : Mr. R. K. Giri, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9278 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Bishwash Vijeta, Advocate
Mr. Ram Naresh Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, SC- 12
Mr. Sudama Kumar, AC to SC-12
For the JP University : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate
For the Chancellor : Mr. R. K. Giri, Advocate

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
3/19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
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.
2. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
4/19
3. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
5/19
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.
4. 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.
5. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
6/19
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.
6. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
7/19
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.
7. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
8/19
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.
8. 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.
9. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
9/19
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.
10. 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.
11. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
10/19
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.
12. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
11/19
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.
13. 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.
14. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
12/19
course, no question of deputation arises.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
13/19
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.
18. 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:
“ 18. The concept of “deputation” is
well understood in service law and has a
recognised meaning. “Deputation” has a
different connotation in service law and the
dictionary meaning of the word “deputation” is
of no help. In simple words “deputation” means
service outside the cadre or outside the parent
department. Deputation is deputing or
transferring an employee to a post outside his
cadre, that is to say, to another department on a

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
14/19
temporary basis. After the expiry period of
deputation the employee has to come back to his
parent department to occupy the same position
unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion
in his parent department as per the Recruitment
Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal
field of deployment or not is decided by the
authority who controls the service or post from
which the employee is transferred. There can be
no deputation without the consent of the person
so deputed and he would, therefore, know his
rights and privileges in the deputation post. The
law on deputation and repatriation is quite
settled as we have also seen in various judgments
which we have referred to above. There is no
escape for the respondents now to go back to
their parent departments and working there as
Constables or Head Constables as the case may
be. ”
19. 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

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
15/19
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:
“3.2.6: In case commission, for any
reason, is delayed in providing the list of eligible
candidate to the State Government and the same
is not made available to the Vice Chancellor, for
appointment as Principal, the Vice-Chancellor
may appoint the senior most person of the
concerned college not below the rank of
Professor in colleges offering P.G. education and
not below the rank of Associate Professor in case
college offering UG education. If the Professor /
Associate Professor is not available in the
concerned college, the Principal may be
appointed from among the Professor / Associate
Professor in the University by the Vice-
Chancellor after obtaining their consent till such
period.”
Emphasis supplied by this Court
20. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
16/19
21. 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.
22. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
17/19
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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,

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
18/19
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.
26. 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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9715 of 2026 dt.01-09-2026
19/19
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Both the writ petitions are hereby allowed.


(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.09.2026
Transmission Date NA