Chhapra, Aug. 30: ZA Islamia College, Siwan, under Jai Prakash University, has been sucked into a legal tangle.

The university had sought explanation on financial irregularities from the college administration. The university alleged that the college disbursed payments to teachers who have not been paid by the government. There were also allegations of paying non-teaching employees flouting directives of the Supreme Court of India.

The secretary of the college submitted the reply while the explanation was sought from the principal.

According to sources, 18 teachers were not paid salaries whom the government has given sanction to pay. The college administration has submitted explanation citing the orders of Patna High Court. But the college administration is submitting excerpts of observations of the high court, which is to its benefit only. It is even using a communal flavour and challenging the university on this ground. An official of the university on the condition of anonymity said this is an “ostrich-like attitude” of the college and it cannot steer clear of the high-handedness and irregularities it has committed.

Some lecturers of the college said the administration has submitted only the submission of the counsel in the high court and not the observation of the justice. The college administration has not quoted the observations of the Supreme Court, which has given clear opinion regarding the role and power of any minority institution and the role of the state government and the university regarding appointment of teaching and non-teaching employees of the minority institutions.

The apex court had said: “All laws made by the state to regulate the administration of educational institutions and grant of aid will apply to minority educational institutions also. Such regulations do not in any manner interfere with the right under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution, which has given some rights to minority institutions.”

Zafar Ahmad Gani, the secretary of the college, in his reply said that till February 2011, payment of 89 teachers were sent to the college by the university but from March to May, payment for only 73 teachers was sent. So the college administration on its own verification made payments to all teaching and non-teaching employees who were regularly paid earlier.

The secretary has quoted that on July 21, 2009, Justice Mridula Mishra of the high court said: “The moot question is whether the university or the state government can stop payment of salary of petitioners who were appointed on teaching and non-teaching posts of a religious minority institution, against the sanctioned post, on the recommendation of governing body, simply on the ground that their appointments have not been approved by the selection committee of the university as provided under Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2007, or earlier by the constituent college service commission. Counsel for the petitioners submits that objection raised by the university in case of the petitioners is illegal. Section 57A(1) of the Bihar University Act, 1976, has already been declared ultra vires long time back in a decision reported in Patna Law Journal Reports, 1984, and the proposed Bihar State Universities Amendment Bill, 2007 being a replica of Section 57A(1) of 1976 Act is also in violation of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.”

On this plea, the secretary said the action of the college administration is right. But the secretary has not presented the observation and order of Justice Mridula Mishra in this regard. This extract is the submission of the counsel and not the observation and order of the judge, an university official said.