Patna High Court
Navin Kumar @ Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 20 July, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9241 of 2026
======================================================
Navin Kumar @ Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Abanindra Kumar Mishra, Resident
at + P.O.- Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Bhitha More, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Prof-Incharge, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand,
District Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP- 12
For the BRABU : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocates
Mr. Sunit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-07-2026
This Court has heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned
Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh,
learned Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Siddhartha Prasad with
Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned Advocate for B.R.A. Bihar University
as well as Mr. Pranay Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioner claiming to be an elected Secretary
of the Governing Body of Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
2/20
College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi, constituted under Section
60 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, read with Statute 32, has
approached this Court being aggrieved with the reasoned order,
as contained in Memo No. B/2436 dated 22.05.2026 issued by
the Vice-chancellor of the B.R.A. Bihar University (in short
'University') under the signature of the Registrar of the
University whereby and whereunder the Governing Body of the
College has been dissolved. Challenge has also been made to
an order, as contained in Memo No. B/2437 dated 22.05.2026
issued by the Registrar of the University by which Ad-hoc
Committee has been constituted for the College, in question.
The petitioner also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent authorities to restore the Governing
Body constituted vide Memo No. B/998 dated 27.05.2023.
3. It would also be worth mentioning here that
during the pendency of the writ petition, the newly constituted
Ad-hoc Committee submitted its report, regarding the action
taken by the erstwhile Governing Body under letter dated
23.06.2026
and further based upon such report the University
vide Memo No. B/2699 dated 25.06.2026 constituted an enquiry
committee to submit further reports on different points, the same
has also been challenged by filing an interlocutory application,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
3/20
being I.A. No. 1 of 2026.
4. The College, in question, namely, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi (in short
‘College’) was established on 10.07.1965 and in course of time,
the college was given permanent affiliation up to Honours level
in the year 2009. In terms with Section 60 of the Bihar
Universities Act, 1976 (in short ‘Act, 1976’) which mandates for
constitution of a Governing Body for Management and
Administration of each affiliated College, other than a college
owned and maintained by the State Government or College
establishment by a Minority Committee or an affiliated
Technical or Medical College, as also read with Statute 32, a
Governing Body was duly constituted for smooth functioning of
the College, in question; and the petitioner, who was inducted as
donor member further elected as Secretary of the Governing
Body by the approval of the Vice-chancellor, as contained in
Annexure-P/1.
5. For the first time, the dispute has arisen in the
meeting of the Governing body dated 26.10.2024 wherein the
Professor incharge, namely, Dr. Om Prakash Singh, who was the
senior most teacher of the College and was to retire on
31.10.2024, his period was extended in the light of on going
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
4/20
NAAC Accreditation Process. The information in this regard has
been given to the Registrar of the University vide letter no.
44/24 dated 28.10.2024 seeking approval for extension of
service of incharge Principal of the College.
6. Pending approval for extension of the services of
Dr. Om Prakash Singh as Professor-cum-incharge Principal of
the College, communication has also been made by the
University with an instruction to distribute the grant among the
teaching and non-teaching employees of the College for the
academic Session 2014-2017, which was due since long, vide
Memo no. B/48 dated 07.01.2025. Accordingly, the same was
done after completion of all the formalities and on release of the
fund by the University. Upon distribution of fund, the utilization
certificate was sent to the University on 15.01.2026, in the
meanwhile, the University issued notice/show-cause notice to
provide specific details of distribution of grant, besides the
particulars of seniority and appointment of working teacher. The
petitioner being the Secretary of the Governing Body submitted
its reply on 16.12.2025 mentioning therein, inter alia, that
information regarding extension of service of Dr. Om Prakash
Singh had already been informed on 28.10.2024 and; further
made it clear that the College is bound to follow the direction of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
5/20
the University. On receipt of the show-cause notice referred
hereinabove, the Professor Incharge-cum-Principal Dr. Om
Prakash Singh tendered his resignation on 20.12.2025, which
was duly accepted by the Governing Body in its meeting held on
04.01.2026. In the meantime, the petitioner was again served
with another show-cause notice vide letter no. B/1 dated
02.01.2026, which was duly replied as to under what
circumstances, the Professor-cum-Principal incharge was
allowed to continue, besides all the details regarding distribution
of the grant along with utilization certificate was also furnished.
The Governing Body further requested for approval of Mr.
Amrendra Kumar as Incharge Principal by virtue of he being the
senior most teacher.
7. The aforesaid response of the petitioner did not
satisfy the University and one another notice was issued upon
the petitioner on 10.01.2026, which was duly replied on
15.01.2026 annexing the copy of the utilization certificate along
with the report of Chartered Accountant and other documents to
satisfy the query made by the University. Dissatisfied with the
response of the petitioner, the Vice-chancellor of the University
vide its order, as contained in Memo No. B/2436 dated
22.05.2026 issued under the signature of Registrar of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
6/20
University has dissolved the Governing Body with immediate
effect and consequently all powers, authorities and financial
control of the said Governing Body came to be ceased. In
pursuant to the impugned order, a consequential order contained
in Memo No.B/2437 dated 22.05.2026 was also issued and an
Ad-hoc committee was also constituted to manage the academic
administration and financial affairs of the College until further
orders or until constitution of a regular Governing Body in
accordance with law, besides a direction to constitute an enquiry
committee for examining the operation of accounts, utilization
of grants as well as financial decision undertaken during the
illegally extended tenure of the retired Principal.
8. Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate while
assailing the impugned reasoned order of the Vice-chancellor
adverting to the aforesaid facts vehemently contended that the
erstwhile Governing Body of the College has been dissolved by
an authority, which has no sanction under the law. It is only the
Syndicate empowered under Clause 28 of the Statute 32 of the
Act, which may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice-
chancellor dissolve a Governing Body and order for its
reconstitution; provided, the Syndicate has given a reasonable
opportunity to the Governing Body to show-cause against such
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
7/20
action. Admittedly, at no point in time, any show-cause notice or
reasonable opportunity has been given by the Syndicate and the
order of dissolution has been passed by the Vice-chancellor,
which is wholly illegal and against the teeth of all the aforenoted
prescriptions provided under Clause 28 of Statute 32.
9. Admitting the position of law, especially in terms
of Section 67 of the Act, 1976, the College or the University
shall in no case extend the period of service of any of the
teaching or non-teaching employees after he attains the age of
superannuation. Nonetheless, even if such decision was taken, it
was a mistake by the Governing Body keeping in mind only to
complete the NAAC Accreditation process, which was started in
the year 2022, while Dr. Om Prakash Singh was working as a
Professor Incharge. Moreover, such decision of the Governing
Body was duly communicated to the Registrar of the University
on 28.10.2024 itself, but no such direction has been given nor
the request for extension of the continuation of Professor
Incharge/ Principal was turned down. For the first time, on
10.12.2025, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice
seeking explanation with regard to continuation of the Incharge
Principal, who had already attained the age of superannuation,
besides the distribution of grant, which was duly responded and,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
8/20
in the meanwhile, the Professor Incharge tendered his
resignation on 20.12.2025. Once the Professor Incharge, who
was unauthorizedly continuing against the mandate of law, has
already tendered his resignation and the petitioner has already
submitted the necessary documents relating to distribution of
grant amongst the teaching and non-teaching employees, there
was no reason or occasion for the Vice-chancellor to pass the
impugned order on 22.05.2026.
10. Once the Vice-chancellor has no authority under
the law to dissolve the Governing Body of the College, in
question, any action taken by him for constitution of Ad-hoc
Governing Body does not arise. Moreover, the constitution of
the Ad-hoc Governing Body is also in the teeth of the mandate
of law, since neither Section 60 nor Statute 32 empowered the
University to nominate the two University representatives;
besides it is only the Syndicate, who has been empowered under
Section 4 of Section 60 to constitute an Ad-hoc committee for
management of the College so long as the Governing Body is
not yet constituted in accordance with the provisions contained
in Sub-Section 1 of Section 60 of the Act. Reliance has been
placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Vijay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 977 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
9/20
2024) wherein the learned Division Bench by its judgment/order
dated 29.10.2024 highlighting the provisions of Clause 28 of
Statute 32 clearly observed that the Vice Chancellor does not
have the competence or power to suspend or dissolve a properly
constituted Governing Body. If any particular act is required to
be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner
or not at all; once the Statute clearly stipulates the provisions to
be followed by an exclusive body, the same is to be done by that
body only.
11. Referring to the said decision Mr. Shahi, learned
Senior Advocate further contended that the learned Division
Bench further clarified that any decision of the Vice-chancellor
to dissolve the Governing Body in anticipation of approval from
the Syndicate and such a ratification of the decision taken by the
Vice Chancellor does not emanate from the Statute, hence in all
the circumstances, the dissolution should be by the Syndicate.
Emphasizing the principle of ratification, he further placed
reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan :
(1989) 3 SCC 132 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that the statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power
conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
10/20is ab initio void and cannot be ratified.
12. Per contra, refuting the aforenoted contention of
the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Siddharth
Prasad, learned Advocate for the University submitted with all
his vehemence that any College, duly affiliated with a
University is bound to follow the provisions of the Act and the
Statute made therein. The College or its Governing Body must
remember that the relation of the affiliated College with the
University shall be governed by the Statute to be made in that
behalf and such Statute shall be provided in particular for the
exercise by the University in respect of laying down minimum
educational qualification and to approve the action taken by the
Governing Body in regard to the creation of post of teachers,
appointment, dismissal, discharge etc., besides to coordinate and
regulate the facilities provided under the expenditure incurred
by such Colleges as well as grant of leave and other benefits.
13. The entire action of the petitioner, including
allowing one, Dr. Om Prakash Singh, as an Incharge Principal,
despite he attained the age of superannuation is not only in clear
violation of Section 67 of the Act, but in utter disregard to the
authority of the University rendering the entire action of the
Governing Body invalid, besides its continuation was dehors the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
11/20
law. Dr. Om Prakash Singh did not merely perform the routine
duties to the limited purpose of facilitating NACC Accreditation
process, rather he exercised the substantial administrative,
financial and policy making power affecting the constitution and
functioning of the Governing Body; In his capacity as ex-officio
member and Principal Incharge he not only participated in the
decision to hold the election of College representative, also
exercised various other powers, which justified the University
intervention and independent scrutiny of the action taken during
such period.
14. The subsequent resignation tendered by Dr. Om
Prakash Singh cannot validate or legitimize his continuation in
the office, which was void, ab initio. The subsequent submission
of utilization certificates, despite repeated direction of the
University clearly reveals high-handedness on the part of the
petitioner and threat to the authority of the University. The
petitioner was served with repeated show-cause notice, but
instead of taking any action in terms with the Act and the
Statute, he tried to save his illegal action with irresponsible and
lame excuse and pendency of NAAC Accreditation process and
subsequently when the University has undertaken the action
against the Governing Body, the resignation of Dr. Om Prakash
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
12/20
Singh was accepted in the meeting of the Governing Body on
04.01.2026.
15. In fact, upon consideration of the available
records, as also the surrounding circumstances, it warranted
immediate exercise of emergency power, as prescribed under
Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976, which led to passing the
reasoned order and further direction to preserve the records and
ensure effective and impartial enquiry.
16. Taking to the aforenoted prescription, Mr.
Prasad, thus submitted that the action of the Vice-chancellor
concerning dissolution of the Governing Body as well as
Constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee was specifically placed
before the Syndicate in its meeting held on 02.07.2026. The
proceedings expressly recorded that the Syndicate considered
the action taken by the Vice-chancellor concerning JLNM
College and after detailed discussion resolved to approve the
same.
17. Thus, the procedure contemplated under Section
10(12) of the Act, 1976 stands materially attracted to the facts of
the present case, which necessitated the Vice-chancellor to take
an immediate protective measure, failing which the same may
affect the lawful administration, public grant funds and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
13/20
preservation of records. He further contended that the University
has initiated an enquiry to examine the apparent violation of
express provision of the Act, such administrative action ought
not to be stalled at intermediate stage particularly when the
enquiry is still in progress. Moreover, the Vice-chancellor cannot
be expected to remain silent spectator when a patient violation
of the provision of the Act or Statute is brought to his notice.
18. So far the action of the respondent University,
especially the Vice-chancellor regarding constitution of the Ad-
hoc Committee is concerned, the learned Division Bench in the
case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A.
No.534 of 2023) vide its judgment/order dated 23.02.2024
clearly ruled that Statute 32(2) was one which was brought out
on 12.02.1982, while the provision regarding Ad-hoc Committee
to be constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in sub-section (4) of
Section 60 was brought about by the amending Act 3 of 1990;
later to the statutes. Therefore, the provision in the enactment
denudes the power of the Syndicate, as per the Statute to
constitute an Ad-hoc Committee and confers it on the Vice-
Chancellor.
19. This Court has given a patient hearing to
learned Senior Advocate/Advocates for the respective parties
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
14/20
and also perused the materials available on record, besides the
relevant prescriptions of the Act/Statute referred hereinabove.
There is no ambiguity in law, necessitating any clarification with
regard to constitution and dissolution of Governing Body of an
Affiliated College. Section 60 of the Act, 1976 clearly stipulates
that there shall be a Governing Body for the management and
administration of each affiliated College, other than the College
prescribed therein; The Governing Body shall be consisted of
seven members as prescribed therein. Further Statute 32 of the
Act deals with Management and Constitution of the Governing
Body, besides the terms of the membership and its functions.
Clause 28 of the Statute 32 deals with the suspension or
dissolution of the Governing Body or cancellation of grant in
aid, which are quoted hereinbelow:
“28. (1) The Syndicate may on its
own motion or at the instance of the Vice-
Chancellor (i) suspend the Governing Body for a
specific period or (ii) dissolve a Governing Body
and order its re-constitution, or (iii) cancel grant-
in-aid to the college concerned, if in the opinion
of the Syndicate any such action is necessary to
be taken for any one or more of the following
reasons: –
(a) that the college has failed to comply with
the directions issued by the Syndicate under
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
15/20the laws of the University within a specific
time,
(b) That the college has failed to observe the
provisions of the laws of the University,
(c) That the accounts of the grants made to
the college have been improperly utilised,
and
(d) That the affairs of the college in the
opinion of the Syndicate have been grossly
mismanaged:
Provided however, that the before
ordering suspension; or dissolution of the
Governing Body or before passing any other
order indicated above the Syndicate shall give a
reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to
show cause against such action”
20. Bare reading of the same, it is quite evident and
imperative that it is the Syndicate, which may on its own motion
or at the instance of the Vice-chancellor dissolve a Governing
Body on account of the reasons mentioned therein, provided
before the order of dissolution of the Governing body, the
Syndicate shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Governing
Body to show-cause against such action.
21. Since the mandate of the above noted
prescription of law is very much clear that it is the Syndicate,
who shall take a decision with regard to the dissolution of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
16/20
Governing Body and, in fact, this position has not even been
disputed by any of the party, it need not require further emphasis
that the order of dissolution of the Governing Body is to be
taken in terms with Clause 28 of Statute 32 of the Act.
22. Now the question for consideration before this
Court is as to whether the facts and circumstances of this case
warrants immediate exercise of the emergency power assigned
to the Vice-chancellor under Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976.
Undisputedly the Vice-chancellor, inter alia, shall exercise such
other powers and perform other duties, as are imposed on him,
as the Statute, Regulation or Rules; apart from he shall have
over all responsibility in maintaining good academic standard
and prompt efficiency and good order of the University. He shall
have also the power to visit and inspect the Colleges and shall
have a right of making an enquiry or causing an enquiry to be
made in respect of any matter connected with such Colleges and
Institutions.
23. Bare reading of Section 10(12) of the Act, the
Vice-chancellor shall also have the power that if at any time
when the Syndicate or Academic Council is not in Session and
he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring to take an
immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
17/20
the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act, he
shall take such action as he deems fit.
24. In the case at hand, this Court has noticed that
for the first time the dispute has arisen in the meeting of the
Governing Body dated 26.10.2024, when a decision has been
taken for extension of services of Dr. Om Prakash Singh as
incharge Principal of the College beyond his service period. The
aforesaid decision taken in its meeting dated 26.10.2024 has
been communicated on 28.10.2024 itself. Subsequent thereto
various correspondences with the University, College and the
members of the Governing Body took place and lastly the
University issued show-cause notice on 10.12.2025, 15.12.2025
and 02.01.2026 regarding illegality in extending the services of
incharge principal, besides certain alleged infirmities in the
manner and distribution of grant to its teaching and non-teaching
employees, which show-cause notices were duly replied by the
petitioner.
25. Thus in the opinion of this Court, the facts and
circumstances were not of such of emergent nature, which
requires invocation of Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976.
Undoubtedly, the power is vested with the Vice-chancellor to
deal with the emergent circumstances, but in the present case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
18/20
the exercise of such power appears to be wholly unwarranted.
26. Once, this Court comes to such conclusion, now
the order of validity of the dissolution is to be decided in the
light of the mandatory provisions as provided under Clause 28
of Statute 32. It is the admitted position that the decision has
been taken by the Vice-chancellor without referring the matter
before the Syndicate for getting its opinion and decision, thus
this Court has no hesitation to hold the reasoned order passed by
the Vice-chancellor, as contained in Memo No. B/2436 dated
22.05.2026 is illegal and wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to
the mandate of Clause 28 of Statute 32, besides the
pronouncement of the learned Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Vijay Kumar (supra).
27. So far the plea of subsequent ratification or the
approval of the order of the Vice-chancellor is concerned, it is
well settled that the statutory authority cannot travel beyond the
power conferred and any action without power has no legal
validity; and thus if an act is illegal and wholly without
jurisdiction, the same cannot be ratified. The aforesaid
proposition has been reinforced and emphasized in the case of
Marathwada University (supra) where the order of dismissal
passed by the Vice-chancellor was later on ratified by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
19/20
Executive Council of the University and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court highlighting the aforesaid principle held that the action
taken by the Vice-chancellor and the ratification by the
Executive Council is unsustainable.
28. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances
and the position obtaining inlaw, this Court is of the conscious
opinion that the impugned order of dissolution of the Governing
Body taken by the Vice-chancellor in its reasoned order dated
22.05.2026 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, thus
hereby set aside. Once the order of dissolution of the Governing
Body does not survive, the consequential order for constitution
of the Ad-hoc Committee would also be termed as illegal.
However, the Court would not enter into the other aspects of the
matter and the pleas taken by the learned Advocates regarding
constitution and continuity of the Ad-hoc Committee on any
other ground, as the same is not required to be dealt with at
present.
29. This Court, however, in the facts of the case,
further makes it clear that the order of this Court would not
come in the way of the Vice-chancellor/University to deliberate
upon and refer the matter to the Syndicate to take appropriate
action/decision in the matter of continuation/dissolution of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9241 of 2026 dt.20-07-2026
20/20
Governing Body after following the mandate of Clause 28 of
Statute 32 of the Act with the clear observance of the principles
of natural justice, if the circumstances necessitate the same.
30. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 20.07.2026 Transmission Date NA
