IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3625 of 2009 JAMIL AHMAD ANSARI . Versus DR. RAJ DEO SINGH & ORS. . ----------- 4/ 03/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the University and for the State. The writ petition was disposed off in similar terms as C.W.J.C. No.11996/06 and analogous costs. In the latter, the directions were to file a representation. The petitioner is stated to have filed a representation enclosing his claim for a due sum of Rs.9,92,119/- duly acknowledging in the conclusion the payments that have been made. The direction in the analogous cases was that after the petitioner files his representation the Vice Chancellor shall consider the same and pay the admissible dues as per Rules. For those that were denied, the Vice Chancellor was required to give reasons. The direction was also to consider grant of interest for amounts that had not been paid for considerable period of time. Show cause has been filed on behalf of the University. It is fairly acknowledged that no reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor while only a sum of Rs.6,75,880/- was being - 2 - acknowledged as the admissible dues in contra- distinction to the amount of Rs.9,92,119/- raised by the petitioner. The show cause is completely silent on the issue of interest as directed by the Writ Court. It may be noticed from the statement of claim of the petitioner that it pertains to the years-1985, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992 etc. The second supplementary counter affidavit seeks to raise issues that the petitioner was found functioning against an unsanctioned post and that the appointment was under scrutiny in pursuance of certain orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.5859/96. Obviously, the University seeks to confront the petitioner with its own conclusions in the present proceedings rather than passing a reasoned and speaking order on his representation. If the petitioner is alleged to have been functioning on a non- sanctioned post, obviously, he has to be asked that question with an opportunity to rebutt. What was the subject-matter of C.W.J.C. No.5859/96 and what orders may have been passed therein is known to the University alone which simply makes a blanket reference to the number of writ petition to hold that the petitioner was under enquiry in pursuance thereto. There is not even a statement that the petitioner was a party in C.W.J.C. No.5859/96. No copy of the order has been annexed A sum of Rs.6,75,880/- has been - 3 - acknowledged to be found payable to the petitioner and which is acknowledged on behalf of the petitioner to have been paid. There has been part compliance of the order. For that reason, the Court refrains from examining the non-compliance of the remaining part of the directions of the Writ Court which have been flouted. Directions are, therefore, issued that on the date that the petitioner appears before the Registrar of the University along with a copy of the present order, the Registrar shall fix a date in presence of the petitioner when entire materials against the petitioner on basis of which his balance claim in the representation is sought to be denied shall be placed for perusal of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be granted a reasonable adjournment that he may request to enable him to examine issues and place his stand before the Registrar. On that specified date the Registrar shall proceed to hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in presence of the petitioner. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)