R.M. Doshit, C.J.@mdashThese four Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common challenge to the Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012 (Bihar Act 22 of 2012) (hereinafter referred to as "the Bihar Act 22 of 2012"). The writ petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the Laboratory Assistants/Junior Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory In-charge/Laboratory Technicians/Technical Assistants, etc. (hereinafter cumulatively referred to as "the Laboratory Assistants") in the Non-Government Grant-in-aid Colleges affiliated to the Universities in the State of Bihar. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that they are Graduates or better qualified and that they have been designated as Demonstrators by appropriate decision of the State Government. As a Demonstrator, the writ petitioners are teachers within the meaning of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as "the Universities Act"). They are entitled to the pay scale of a Demonstrator recommended by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC") and accepted by the State Government. The petitioners are also entitled to further promotion to the teaching posts of Lecturer, Reader, and Professor in the hierarchy of the teachers. It is the complaint of the petitioners that in spite of the aforesaid rights conferred upon them by appropriate legislation and the government orders, the same is set at naught by the impugned amendment to the Universities Act.
2. The Government of India enjoys the exclusive authority with regard to coordination and determination of standards in institution for higher education and research in scientific and technical institutions (Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India). In exercise of the said power, the Government of India has enacted University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC Act") to constitute the University Grants Commission. Under the said Act, the Commission is enjoined to take necessary steps for promotion and coordination of university education; for determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities; to allocate and disburse out of the fund of the Commission grants to the Universities for the maintenance and development; to recommend the measures for the improvement of university education, etc. The Commission is also empowered to make rules and regulations in furtherance of its objects. In exercise of the said powers, the Commission has made the University Grants Commission (qualification required of a person to be appointed to be teaching staff of a university and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 (hereinafter referred to an "the UGC Regulations") and has made certain recommendations from time to time concerning the university education including the hierarchy of teachers in the Universities and in the constituent and affiliated colleges, their eligibility, mode of appointment, pay scales, etc. It appears that the recommendations made by the Commission have been accepted by the State of Bihar for implementation in the Universities in the State of Bihar and in the constituent and the affiliated colleges. In compliance of such recommendations, the State of Bihar has conferred the status of a teacher upon the Demonstrator/Tutors in the colleges giving them the benefit of pay scale of a Lecturer and also the chance of being considered and promoted further in the teachers'' hierarchy. As suggested by the UGC, the process has been undertaken with a view to abolishing the cadre of the Demonstrator. On promotion of a Demonstrator as a Lecturer, the post of Demonstrator is upgraded and ultimately is abolished when the person occupying such post retires or resigns from service.
3. The State Government also extended the aforesaid benefits upon the Laboratory Assistants inasmuch as the Laboratory Assistants possessing higher qualification of a Bachelor''s Degree have been redesignated as Demonstrators. Having been redesignated as Demonstrators, the Laboratory Assistants have claimed to be treated as Teacher and to have a right to higher salary, promotion, etc. At a point of time, the State Government did accept such demands; however, the experience and deeper consideration, seem to have made the State Government wiser. Now the State Government feels that having regard to the number of such Laboratory Assistants, the burden on the public exchequer is surmounting and has grown more than hundred times larger than was initially anticipated. The State Government also feels that the Laboratory Assistants, although they may be Graduates and may possess higher qualifications, having regard to the duties assigned to them, by no stretch of imagination can be treated as teacher who can be promoted as Lecturers, Readers, etc. in the colleges. Such appointment or promotion would adversely affect the higher education in the State of Bihar.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the State Government has enacted the Bihar Act 22 of 2012 as under:-
1. Short title and Commencement- (1) This Act may be called The Bihar State Universities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012.
(2) This Act shall be deemed to come into force from the date of issue of U.G.C. Regulation, 1991 i.e. with effect from 05 October, 1991.
2. Amendment in Section-2 of the Bihar Act-23, 1976-clause (v) of section-2 shall be substituted by the following:-
(v) "Teacher" means person holding the post of only University Professor/Professor, Reader, and Lecturer and such sanctioned posts in the teacher''s grade on the basis of regulations issued by the U.G.C. from time to time;
Provided, that notwithstanding the said substitution in Section - 2(v), the action taken in respect of working Demonstrators appointed before 18-09-1975 on the post sanctioned before 01-01-1973 with the concurrence of Bihar Public Service Commission or Bihar State University Service Commission shall not be affected by this substitution.
3. Overriding effect of the Act- Notwithstanding anything contained contrary in this Act or any other Act, Ordinances, Rules or decision or judgment or decree of any court the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect.
5. Learned counsels Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth and Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned advocates Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha and Mr. Surya Kant Mishra have appeared for the writ petitioners. The learned counsels have taken us through the voluminous record of the Writ Petitions and various decisions rendered by this Court and by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the subject matter. In the submissions of the learned counsels, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012 has been enacted with a view to defeating the right to higher pay scale and appointment to the teaching posts in the colleges acquired by the Laboratory Assistants through various government orders and the judgments of the Courts. The attempt to divest the Laboratory Assistants of their right to higher pay scale and the higher posts in the teaching hierarchy of the colleges is fraud on legislation. The impugned Act is a colourable piece of legislation enacted with an intention to circumvent the orders of the High Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Learned counsels have vehemently submitted that although the petitioners were appointed as Laboratory Assistants, they do possess higher qualification for appointment as Lecturer, Reader or even Professor. The petitioners have also been performing the duties of a teacher insofar as they are called upon to conduct the classes and they have been doing so regularly. There cannot be an earthly reason not to treat the petitioners as teachers.
6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth has especially relied upon Entry 25 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India as also Articles 246 and 254 of the Constitution. He has submitted that notwithstanding the UGC Act being a Central Act, the Universities Act shall prevail. He has assailed the contention that the Bihar Act 22 of 2012 has been enacted with a view to bringing the Universities Act in consonance with the UGC Act. Mr. Kanth has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Laliteshwar Mishra & Ors. (CWJC No. 1377 of 2010, decided on 21st September 2010).
7. In support of their submissions, the learned counsels have relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matters of In re. Art. 143
8. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondent State of Bihar. He has taken us through the long preamble to the Bihar Act 22 of 2012, the various circulars and orders issued in connection with the matter at dispute. Mr. Lalit Kishore has relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matters of
9. Learned advocates appearing for the respondent Universities have supported the State Government and the impugned enactment Bihar Act 22 of 2012. They have also submitted that to upgrade or redesignate the Laboratory Assistants as Demonstrators and then as Lecturers will not be conducive to the education and will hinder the efforts to improve the higher education.
10. We have perused the above referred judgments cited before us by the learned counsels and have followed the principles of construction of Statute enunciated in the said judgments. We have also considered the rule of construction of law enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Reference Case No. 1 of 1951
11. We will first consider the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations. The UGC Regulations are made in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 126 read with Section 14 of the UGC Act. They are especially framed for providing for the qualifications for appointment to the teaching staff of a University and the institutions affiliated to the Universities. The UGC Regulations are made applicable, inter alia, to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act. Regulation 2 thereof makes it mandatory that a person to be appointed on a teaching post shall possess the qualifications mentioned in Schedule I thereto. Regulation 3 thereof provides, inter alia, for the consequences in case of contravention of Regulation 2. Schedule I to the UGC Regulations provides the minimum qualification required to be possessed by a person for appointment to the posts of Professor, Reader (open selection), Reader (promotion), Lecturer and Lecturer (senior scale). Thus, it is apparent that apart from the aforesaid three cadres of Professor, Reader and Lecturer, other cadres in a university or affiliated institutions are not recognized as teaching posts under the UGC Act and the UGC Regulations.
12. In exercise of powers conferred by the UGC Act and the UGC Regulations, the UGC has issued directions from time to time in respect of the revision of pay scales and required qualifications of the teachers in the universities and the affiliated institutions. While revising the pay scales of teachers with effect from 1st January 1973 and the required qualifications, the UGC also suggested that no new appointment of Demonstrators be made from 1st January 1973 and the qualified Demonstrators be re-designated as Lecturers. On retirement or resignation, the upgraded post of Demonstrator be abolished. The pay scale of surviving Demonstrators was revised from time to time with a clear instruction that such revision shall apply to the existing Demonstrators alone. Thus, the direction not to make further appointment of Demonstrator/Tutor since 1st January 1973 was specific and explicit and was repeated at all times whenever the pay scales were revised. The said direction of the UGC is reflected in the decision of the State Government dated 18th September 1975.
13. It would not be out of place to mention here that the State of Bihar has accepted the pay scales recommended by the UGC for the universities and the college teachers. The State of Bihar is also enjoined to maintain the standards of education and the required qualifications of the teachers as recommended by the UGC. We may also refer to various directions and instructions issued in respect of required qualifications of the teachers in the universities and colleges. While allowing revision of the pay scales of teachers effective from 1st January 1986, the Government of India reiterated "Recruitment to the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selection." Under the Schedule of pay revision, the Tutors/Demonstrators in the universities were allowed upward pay revision with a specific direction "Existing incumbents only". The cadre of Laboratory Assistant (under various names) is not referred to in the said schedule. It necessarily means that the cadre of Laboratory Assistants (under various names) was never recognized as a teaching cadre. We need not repeat or reiterate that the aforesaid instruction has been consistently issued each time the pay scales of the teachers are revised. Thus, the intention of the Government of India and the UGC to gradually abolish the cadre of Tutors/Demonstrators and to maintain a uniformity in the pattern and the hierarchy of teachers in the universities and the colleges of Professors, Readers and Lecturers is loud and clear. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty that no new appointment of a Demonstrator would be made after 1st January 1973.
14. Nevertheless, while enacting the Universities Act, the State of Bihar defined the term "Teacher" to include "Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other persons imparting instruction". Thus the term "Teacher" was not confined to the cadres of Professor, Reader and Lecturer as directed by the Government of India and recommended by the UGC, but it was thrown wide open to include Demonstrator as well as other non descript cadres. We may note here that the Universities in the State of Bihar governed by the Universities Act and the Patna University governed by the Patna University Act, 1976 function through the respective Vice Chancellors, Senate, Syndicates/Executive Councils and the Academic Councils. The Senate is empowered, inter alia, to make Statutes; the Syndicate/Executive Council is empowered, inter alia, to make ordinances; Academic Council is empowered, inter alia, to make Regulations. The power to make Rules is conferred upon the Departmental Council. Under the Universities Act and the Patna University Act, 1976, it is the Bihar State University (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission which is empowered to make selection of persons for appointment as teachers in the Universities and the Constituent Colleges. Similarly, power to make selection of persons for appointment as teachers in affiliated colleges is conferred upon the Bihar College Service Commission established under the Bihar College Service Commission Act, 1976. Statute 7 framed under the Universities Act provides, inter alia, "the posts of teachers of affiliated degree colleges shall be filled up by open advertisement." Similar provision for recruitment by open advertisement is made in Statute 9 in respect of University Professors/Professors/Readers/Lecturers/Principals.
15. Statute 11 provides, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary as contained in the Statutes it is hereby provided that the cases of Demonstrators, if any working in the service of the University or the College concerned, as the case may be, shall be considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer subject to the following conditions". The conditions provide that the concerned Demonstrator shall possess the qualifications required of a Lecturer on the date of his appointment as Demonstrator and that he had served at least for 7 continuous years as Demonstrator.
16. In view of the above directions/instructions/provisions, it appears to us that the Tutors/Demonstrators were never considered to be the teachers. However, they (appointed prior to 1st January 1973) were upgraded to the teaching post of Lecturer provided they possessed the requisite qualification on the date of their initial appointment as Demonstrator and on condition that the upgraded post be abolished on resignation or retirement of the concerned Demonstrator. This benefit was not extended to the Demonstrators appointed after 1st January 1973, nor did the question of appointment of the Demonstrator arise after the Government decision dated 18th September 1975, not even by upgrading or redesignating the Laboratory Assistants as Demonstrators.
17. This makes it more apparent that to consider the Laboratory Assistants as teachers was far fetched or beyond imagination of either the Govt. of India or the UGC. We have noticed that regarding Laboratory Assistants, the Government of India in its communication dated 4th December 1967 in connection with revision of pay scales of university and the college teachers observed, "As regards the post of Demonstrator it has been noted in the discussions with the representatives of the Bihar Government that the Demonstrators in the Colleges are Graduate Laboratory Assistants. They are not Post Graduates and they do not do any part time teaching. Since the particular scheme covers only the teaching staff of the Universities and Colleges, the benefits of the scheme would not be applicable to the Laboratory Assistants who are known as Demonstrators in the Colleges."
18. Flows from the above referred definition of teacher in Clause (v) of Section 2 of the Universities Act, the claim of the Laboratory Assistants that they do possess the higher qualification required for appointment as Lecturer and that they do conduct classes. Therefore, Laboratory Assistants also are the teachers within the meaning of the above referred Section 2(v) of the Universities Act and a similar definition under the Patna University Act, 1976 and certain judgments delivered by the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the writ petitions, the Letters Patent Appeals and also of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The reliance is also placed on the Circular dated 1st April 1969 issued by the University Service Commission of Bihar in respect of absorption of Demonstrators of affiliated colleges. Under the said Circular, the University Service Commission issued directions/clarifications to the governing bodies of the affiliated colleges. Although the said direction/clarification was issued ostensibly in respect of the Demonstrators in the colleges, in fact, it issued direction in respect of Graduate Laboratory Assistants for appointment as Demonstrators in the affiliated colleges. It appears that it was under the said Circular that the Graduate Laboratory Assistants were re-designated or were appointed as Demonstrators who have approached this Court time and again to treat them as teachers under the recommendations made by the UGC and to appoint them as Lecturer, Reader and Professor in the hierarchy of teachers. The said Circular was followed by a detailed instructions issued by the University Service Commission on 26th July 1969 and 12th December 1969. Reliance is also placed on the Government letter dated 18th/25th August 1972 indicating that the decision of the Chancellor to the effect that the Graduate Laboratory Assistants, if treated as teachers, all rights of teachers would flow to them and no restriction could be placed on such rights. To us, it appears that the claim of the Laboratory Assistants to be treated as teachers on the basis of the aforesaid instructions issued by the University Service Commission and the wide/vague definition of teacher incorporated in the Universities Act and the Patna University Act is totally misconceived. At first, we have our own doubts, whether the University Service Commission had authority to issue such direction. There is no material on record that the said decision was backed by a Government decision; second, in absence of detail enquiry of each individual, the Laboratory Assistants could not be treated as Teacher within the meaning of then prevalent Universities Act; third, no upgradation or redesignation could be made without the approval of the University Service Commission. Moreover, the Government of India while revising the pay scales of teachers had altogether different view reproduced hereinabove. Except the bare statement made in the writ petition, there is nothing on the record that the Laboratory Assistants before us are required to conduct classes as part of their regular duty. In our opinion, the claim made by the Laboratory Assistants has no legal force. The claim is contrary to the UGC Regulations, the Universities Act, the Patna Universities Act, 1976 and the Statutes.
19. Section 57 of the Universities Act provides for appointment of the teachers by the Vice Chancellors on recommendation of the Bihar State Universities (Constituent Colleges) Service Commission. The said Commission was enjoined to hold a qualifying test for appointment of Lecturers in the universities/constituent colleges/affiliated colleges. A similar provision is made for appointment of teachers by Governing body of the colleges (private colleges affiliated to the universities) on recommendation of the College Service Commission. The College Service Commission is enjoined to make selection and make recommendation for appointment, dismissal and termination of teachers of affiliated colleges. Statute 7 also talks about appointment of Lecturer, Reader, and Professor in the colleges by selection and appointment. Any attempt to absorb the Laboratory Assistants as Lecturers, irrespective of the wide definition of the term ''Teacher'', would be in contravention of the above referred provisions of Sections 57 and 57A of the Universities act and the similar provision contained in Section 57 of the Patna University Act, 1976.
20. As recorded hereinabove, the universities function through their Senates, Syndicates/Executive Councils, the Academic Councils and the Departmental Councils. It is the Academic Council constituted u/s 24 of the Universities Act which is empowered u/s 25 of the Universities Act to decide upon all academic matters. We have considered the facts in the matter of Sideshwari Pd Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ((CWJC No. 522 of 1979 (R)). In the said matter, the writ petitioners were the Graduate Laboratory Assistants in the Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology. It was the Academic Council which proposed that the said Laboratory Assistants be designated as the Demonstrators and be allowed to conduct classes as teachers. Except the Laboratory Assistants in Muzaffarpur Institute of Technology, no Academic Council had ever proposed upgradation of Laboratory Assistants as Demonstrators; or to allow them to conduct classes and to treat them as teachers.
21. In the present case as we have discussed hereinabove, neither the Government of India, nor the U.G.C. had ever proposed that the Laboratory Assistants in the colleges be redesignated or upgraded as Demonstrators, nor was it the policy decision of the State Government. It was the University Service Commission which came out with such a proposal under its circulars/letters/instructions dated 7th April 1969, 26th July 1969 and 12th December 1969. Even the University Service Commission, under the said instructions, was alive that the concerned Laboratory Assistants were required to possess the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Demonstrator and that such appointment can be made on recommendation of the University Service Commission. The State Government has categorically averred that none of the petitioners before us had been appointed on recommendation of the University Service Commission. The said statement is not controverted by the writ petitioners-Laboratory Assistants.
22. In our opinion, considering the matter at any angle, the Laboratory Assistants have no vested right to be upgraded as Demonstrators or treated as teachers. The claim is not supported by the UGC Regulations or the Universities Act or any of the Government of India directions or the directions of the Government of Bihar. Neither the UGC Regulations, nor the Statutes under the Universities Act envisage appointment of a Lecturer by upgradation or by redesignation of a Demonstrator or Laboratory Assistant. Merely because the definition of the term "Teacher" included a non-descript clause, "other person imparting instruction in Department, College or Institute maintained by the University", the Laboratory Assistants do not automatically become teachers as defined in clause (v) of Section 2 of the Universities Act. There is no active application of mind and decision either by the Academic Council or the universities or the Government of Bihar to treat the Laboratory Assistants as Demonstrators/Teachers. No right to be treated as "Teacher" has ever accrued to the Laboratory Assistants, nor the Laboratory Assistants are divested of any such right by the impugned amendment, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012.
23. In our opinion, the State of Bihar has the legislative competence to enact the impugned amendment, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012. The said Act brings the definition of the term "Teacher" in consonance of the term "Teacher" defined under the UGC Regulations with effect from the date the UGC Regulations came into force. No enactment is invalid per se because it is made retrospective in its operation. Unless the retrospective enactment abrogates or abridges a fundamental right or a vested or an accrued right, it is a valid enactment. [Reference may be had to the judgment in the matter of
24. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has in the matter of R.S. Joshi (supra) said, "In this branch of law, ''colourable'' is not ''tainted with bad faith or evil motive''; it is not pejorative or crooked. Conceptually, ''colourability'' is bound up with incompetency. xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx. In the jurisprudence of power, colourable exercise of or fraud on legislative power or, more frightfully, fraud on the Constitution, are expressions which merely mean that the legislature is incompetent to enact a particular law although the label of competency is stuck on it, and then it is colourable legislation. It is very important to notice that if the legislature is competent to pass the particular law, the motives which impel it to pass the law are really irrelevant."
25. The real issue is whether the impugned enactment (the Bihar Act 22 of 2012) can be said to be unconstitutional on account of its being retrospective in operation or can it be said to have been enacted with a view to nullifying the above referred judgments of this Court in the matter Dr. Radha Krishna Jha & Ors. or the benefit accrued under the judgment in the matter of Laliteshwar Mishra & Ors. (supra). Such an issue has come up for consideration by the Hon''ble Supreme Court time and again. In the matter of The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Anr. (supra) while considering a similar issue, the Hon''ble Court held, "the legislatures under our Constitution have within the prescribed limits, powers to make laws prospectively as well as retrospectively. By exercise of those powers, the legislature can remove the basis of a decision rendered by a competent Court thereby rendering that decision ineffective. But no legislature in this country has power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by Courts."
26. The very principle has been followed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court consistently. In the matter of
27. The above referred observation has been reiterated by the Hon''ble Court in the matter of Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. (supra). While summing up the law on the point, the Hon''ble Court held, inter alia, "In exercising legislative power, the legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively. The changed or altered conditions are such that the previous decision would not have been rendered by the Court, if those conditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as invalid. It is also empowered to give effect to retrospective legislation with a deeming date or with effect from a particular date. The legislature can change the character of the tax or duty from impermissible to permissible tax but the tax or levy should answer such character and the legislature is competent to recover the invalid tax validating such a tax on removing the invalid base for recovery from the subject or render the recovery from the State ineffectual. It is competent for the legislature to enact the law with retrospective effect and authorise its agencies to levy and collect the tax on that basis, make the imposition of levy collected and recovery of the tax made valid, notwithstanding the declaration by the court or the direction given for recovery thereof."
28. The aforesaid law on constitutional validity on the retrospective enactment has been reintegrated by the Hon''ble Court in the matters of Virendra Singh Hooda & Ors. (supra) and of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Pensioners Samaj (supra).
29. Once again the said law has been reiterated in the matter of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.) (supra). The Court has held, "In our opinion, there is one and only one ground for declaring an Act of the legislature (or a provision in the Act) to be invalid, and that is if it clearly violates some provision of the Constitution in so evident a manner as to leave no manner of doubt."
30. The upshot of the above referred judgments is that unless an enactment is established to have been passed by a legislature without or beyond its competence, the enactment would not be held to be ultra vires merely because it is retrospective in its application or it removes the basis of the judgment of a Court and nullifies the effect of such judgment.
31. If we examine the impugned enactment, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012, on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, we cannot say that the Government of Bihar had no authority to pass such an enactment. Clearly the enactment has been passed under the authority conferred by Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the Government of Bihar had no legislative competence to pass such an enactment. The only contention is that it takes away the vested right or a right accrued to the writ petitioners under the judgments of this Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Similar contention raised in all the above referred judgments had been rejected by the Hon''ble Court. In the present case, more so, as the Laboratory Assistants (writ petitioners) do not have any fundamental, statutory or a vested right to be treated as "Teacher". Nor such a right has accrued to the Laboratory Assistants (writ petitioners) under a judgment of this Court binding to the parties. Although the Government has no power to disobey or disregard the judgment of a Court, it does have a legislative power to remove the basis of such judgment. It can also be on monetary consideration as in the case of Bihar Pensioners Samaj (supra).
32. To us, it appears that the impugned enactment, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012, was necessitated to remove the mischief caused by the non- descript clause, "other person imparting instruction in Department, College or Institute maintained by the University" in the definition of the term "Teacher". As it is, the very word ''definition'' connotes a specific and definite meaning. A definition, if wide and vague, leaves possibility of mischief, manipulation and misuse. In the present case, by the impugned enactment, the Bihar Act 22 of 2012, the State Government has removed the very mischief and has brought the definition of the term "Teacher" in consonance with the UGC Regulations. We do not see how such an enactment can be said to be ultra vires and unconstitutional. Neither the impugned enactment is void for want of legislative competence; nor it is arbitrary or discriminatory; nor it is fraud on legislation; nor is it colourable legislation. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
I agree.
