A university cannot deput[e] teachers without consent where the governing statute expressly requires it.

The State Government resolved, by Resolution No. 633 dated 30 April 2026, to establish 211 Government Degree Colleges in blocks without existing degree colleges and created teaching and non-teaching posts in each college.

The State guidelines required the concerned Universities to post or depute Principals to operate the newly established colleges.

Jai Prakash University invited options from teachers for appointment as In-charge Principals and, after constituting committees, issued notifications dated 27 May 2026 and 4 June 2026 deputing the petitioners, who were Professors or Associate Professors in existing constituent colleges or University departments, as In-charge Principals.

The petitioners contended that they had neither opted nor consented to such deputation and challenged the notifications, the rejection of their representations, and consequential show-cause notices, stoppage of salary, and directions preventing them from marking attendance.

The University defended the action as an administrative transfer within the same University, relying on the Vice-Chancellor’s statutory power to control the University’s educational and administrative arrangements.

Whether the University could depute the petitioners as In-charge Principals in the newly established Government Degree Colleges without obtaining their consent, particularly in view of Statute 3.2.6 governing appointment of Principals in constituent colleges?

Whether the newly established Government Degree Colleges could be treated as constituent units of Jai Prakash University in the absence of an order of the State Government published in the Official Gazette?

Whether the orders rejecting the petitioners’ representations and the consequential actions restraining attendance and withholding salary were legally sustainable?

The Court applied Section 3(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, which requires an educational institution beyond the University’s territorial jurisdiction to be made part of, or admitted to the privileges of, the University only by an order of the State Government published in the Official Gazette.

Section 10(11) of the Act empowers the Vice-Chancellor to exercise general control over the University’s educational arrangements and maintain academic and administrative discipline, but that power must be exercised consistently with the Act and applicable Statutes.

Statute 3.2.6 permits the Vice-Chancellor, where a Professor or Associate Professor is unavailable in the concerned college, to appoint a Professor or Associate Professor from the University as Principal only after obtaining such person’s consent and for the prescribed period.

Relying on State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 372, and Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2432, the Court held that deputation ordinarily involves service outside the parent cadre or department and cannot be compelled without the employee’s consent unless authorised by a statutory rule.

The principle in Shubha Sinha v. Veer Kuwar Singh University, 2008 (1) PLJR 576, concerning transfer within the same employer, was held inapplicable because the impugned orders expressly contemplated deputation to colleges not legally established as constituent units of the University.

The Court found that the impugned notifications expressly deputed the petitioners to newly established Government Degree Colleges, rather than merely transferring them between legally recognised constituent colleges of the University.

Since the petitioners specifically asserted that they had neither opted for nor consented to the deputation, and the University did not establish compliance with the consent requirement in Statute 3.2.6, the orders were contrary to the governing Statute and the settled law on deputation.

Section 10(11) could not override the specific procedure prescribed by Statute 3.2.6, nor could it authorise deputation to institutions lacking the statutory status of constituent colleges in the absence of Gazette notification under Section 3(4).

The rejection of the petitioners’ representations was also unsustainable because it failed to address their specific objection regarding non-compliance with the Statute.

Consequently, the show-cause proceedings, restrictions on attendance, and withholding of salary, being consequential to the invalid deputation orders, could not survive.

It also held that the newly established colleges could not be treated as constituent units of Jai Prakash University without the requisite Gazette notification.

The deputation notifications dated 27 May 2026 and 4 June 2026, insofar as they affected the petitioners, were quashed, as were the orders rejecting their representations.

All consequential orders preventing the petitioners from marking attendance and withholding their salaries were also quashed and cancelled.

Both writ petitions were accordingly allowed.