IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3050 of 2006 Basudeo Prasad, Son of late Kishori Prasad, Resident of Village Mubarakpur, P.O. Majra Madhar, Police Station Silaoo, District Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 2. Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya. 3. Principal, Anugrah Narayan College, Patna. 4. College Promotion Committee, Anugrah Narayan College, Patna. 5. Shri Shakti Nath Jha, Son of late Tej Narayan Jha, Resident of Village and Post Kathra, Via Putai Police Station-Manigachi, District Darbhanga. 6. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Hardeep Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla Rajiv Nagar, Road No.24, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Police Station Patliputra, District Patna. 7. Shri Raghubir Singh, son of late Tripit Singh, Resident of Mohalla Mahabir Colony, P.O. Anishabad, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District Patna. 8. Shri Suresh Sharma, Son of late Banshi Sharma, Resident of Mohalla Mahesh Nagar, P.O. Keshri Nagar, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Patna. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the University. Counsel for the petitioner with respect to the following relief:- “2(I) For quashing the recommendation of respondent No.4 sent by the respondent No.3, vide letter dated 02.12.2004 to the respondent No.2, for granting promotion to the recommended persons so far as recommendation for promotion, to the post of Head Assistant is concerned, which is lying vacant since 01.07.1996, to which post the respondent No.5, has illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely been 2 recommended to be promoted, w.e.f. 01.07.96 and on retirement of said respondent No.5, on 31.01.2004, the respondent No.6, has illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely been recommended to be promoted to the said post of Head Assistant w.e.f. 01.02.04, without considering the genuine case and seniority position of the petitioner, who has been initially appointment, to the post of office assistant on 24.11.1996. (II) For quashing the recommendation of respondent no.4, sent by the respondent No.3, vide letter dated 02.12.2004, to the respondent No.2, for granting promotion to the recommended persons, so far as recommendation for promotion, to the post of Head Accountant is concerned, which is lying vacant since 01.02.1994, to which post the respondent No.7, has illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely been recommended to be promoted w.e.f. 01.2.1994 and on retirement of said respondent No.7, on 31.01.2004, the respondent No.8 has illegally, arbitrarily and malafidely been recommended to be promoted, to the said post of Head Accountant w.e.f. 01.02.2004, without considering the genuine case and seniority position of the petitioner, who 3 has been initially appointed on 24.11.1966, to the post of Office Assistant/Assistant. (III) For direction upon the respondents, to consider the case of the petitioner, for promotion, either to the sanctioned and vacant post of Head Assistant with retrospective effect, or to the sanctioned and vacant post of Head Accountant with retrospective effect, along with all consequential benefits. (IV) For holding that the petitioner is legally entitled, for promotion, either to the sanctioned and vacant post of Head Assistant, with retrospective effect, alongwith all consequential benefits, or to the sanctioned and vacant post of Head Accountant, with retrospective effect, alongwith all consequential benefits.” (V) For direction upon the respondents particularly the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to produce all relevant records regarding the case, before this Hon’ble Court for its perusal and consideration in the interest of justice and fair play.” would submit that though the petitioner has retired in the year 2006 but then if his case for promotion is considered even on a notional basis, he may be benefited for 4 payment of higher retirement benefit. In this context, counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was admittedly working on the said higher post by way of interim working arrangement made by the Principal of the College when the vacancy had occurred on the post of Head Assistant/Accountant and therefore, the petitioner being the senior most Assistant appointed way back in the year 1967, was the most eligible person who ought to have been recommended for his promotion. Counsel, therefore, has sought to assail the recommendation made by the Committee headed by the Principal vide his letter dated 2.12.2004. Counsel for the petitioner, however is not aware as to whether the said recommendation made on 2.12.2004 had led to an order of promotion till the date of retirement of the petitioner or even thereafter. Counsel for the University would take a plea that he has been given the brief only today and has got no instruction in the matter. This writ application was filed on 5 3.3.2006 after serving two copies of the writ application on one Krishna Murari Prasad, J.C. to Sri Jai Shankar Barnawal on 1.3.2006. If thereafter Mr. Barnawal, presently appearing in this case, was not assigned this brief and the University for a period of more than four and half years had failed to either make arrangement of its counsel or file its counter affidavit, it has to thank its own stars. This Court, after a period of four and half years, cannot keep the matter further pending awaiting filing of the counter affidavit or allocation of brief to a competent counsel. In that view of the matter, when the facts stated in this writ application remained uncontroverted, this much becomes clear that the petitioner would be entitled for consideration of his case of promotion by the University. Let it be noted that the Principal of the College at best had only the power of making recommendation to University to enable the latter to take a final decision for grant of promotion to the petitioner True it is that the petitioner has already retired from 6 service and therefore, the consideration now for promotion of the petitioner may only be by way of notional promotion but then that may also lead to higher payment of retirement benefit to him. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Vice Chancellor of the University to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found eligible for such promotion, the concerned authority of the University would also notify such promotion at least from a date on which any junior to him was given such promotion. In the event no person junior to the petitioner till date has been promoted, the petitioner would also not be entitled for grant of any promotion. Such an exercise by way of reasoned order must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)