IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4484 of 2002 Binod Prasad, son of Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, resident of village Naurojpur, P.O. Barbigha, District- Nalanda, at present working as Assistant in the Vice Chancellor’s Cell, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur ……………. Petitioner Versus 1.Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, through its Registrar, having its Head Office at Pusa, District Samastipur 2.The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District Samastipur 3.The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District Samastipur 4.The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Patna 5.The Comptroller, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District Samastipur 6.Krishna Murari Prasad, father’s name not known, Assistant, P.I.M. Cell, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur 7.Amrendra Kumar Pandey, father’s name not known, Assistant, Recruitment Cell, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur 8.Assistant Director, Administration, R.A.U., Patna ………… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Giri, Advocate For Private Respondents : Mr.Abhinav Srivastava,Adv. For the University : Mr.D.K.Sinha,Sr.Adv. with Dr.A.K.Upadhyay,Adv. ----------- 5. 28/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the University and learned counsel for the private respondents. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of Memo No.696 dated 18.5.1999, whereby respondent nos.6 and 7 were granted promotion to the Junior Selection Grade scale pursuant to gradation list dated - 2 - 12.1.1993, annexed as Annexure-6, in which they were shown above the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the said gradation list. Gradation list (Annexure-6) shows that it contained names of typists as per seniority prepared on the basis of their selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained higher marks in the selection process than respondent nos.6 and 7. Therefore, he should have been placed higher in the gradation list and above the said respondents. He submits that the petitioner had filed objection to the same but the same was not considered and on the basis of this faulty gradation list, respondent nos.6 and 7 were granted promotion to the Junior Selection Grade. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ application. Respondent University has filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, an Office order of the Director, Administration contained in Memo No.955 dated 24.6.2006 has been annexed. This office order supersedes earlier gradation list dated 12.1.1993 and a fresh list has been prepared of incumbents in order of their seniority as per - 3 - marks obtained by them in the typing test of both English and Hindi. In this list, name of petitioner is at serial no.3, whereas respondent nos.6 and 7 are at serial nos.6 and 5 respectively. It appears from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit that after publication of this final gradation list, the Director, Administration recommended that the petitioner requires consideration for his promotion as he was higher in the list. It has also been mentioned in this note, addressed to the Law Officer of the University, that in view of the changed gradation list, promotion of respondent nos.6 and 7 cannot be considered legal. He recommended the file to be placed before the Vice Chancellor of the University for orders. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the matter is still pending for final decision by the Vice Chancellor. A rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. It is stated in the rejoinder that a Committee was constituted under the orders of the Vice Chancellor to decide the matter of inter se seniority and promotion in the cadre of Typist. The Committee held its meeting and its - 4 - resolution has been annexed as Annexure-14 with the rejoinder. From this resolution, it appears that the Committee has found the petitioner senior to respondent nos.6 and 7. In the circumstances, it has recommended two possible alternative steps; one is that the promotion of respondent nos.6 and 7 be cancelled and three persons, who were found senior as per revised gradation list, should be granted promotion; second suggestion of the Committee is that post be created for these three persons and without disturbing respondent nos.6 and 7 these three persons may also be granted promotion. Committee has recommended that final decision may be taken by the Vice Chancellor in the matter from his own level. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since now petitioner has been found senior to respondent nos.6 and 7, he should get the benefits of promotion from the initial date itself i.e. 2.5.1993 and should get consequential monetary benefits of the same also, and for that purpose, he should be treated as having been promoted from that date itself and respondent nos.6 and 7 should be shifted to newly created posts. - 5 - Apparently, no final decision has been taken by the University in the matter. Matter has been referred to the Vice Chancellor, who is to accept either of the suggestions made by the Committee. Therefore, while taking decision in view of the recommendation of the Committee, the Vice Chancellor can also consider as to what benefits will accrue to the petitioner as a consequence of grant of such promotion. At this stage, this Court cannot anticipate any adverse order against petitioner. It will not be proper for this Court to issue any direction at this stage to the Vice Chancellor to pass order in respect of the petitioner in one way or the other. Therefore, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor of the University to make all endeavours to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law taking into account the recommendation of the Committee within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Pradeep/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)