IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.578 of 2004 RAMAKANT PRASAD SINGH, son of Sri Yogendra Prasad Singh, resident of village and P.O. Gorakhari, Via Vikram, District Patna ... Petitioner Versus 1. MAGADH UNIVERSITY through its Registrar, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 2. Vice Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 3. Principal, B.S.College, Danapur, District Patna ... Respondents ----------- 3. 16.11.2010 Having considered the materials on record as with regard to the following relief of the petitioner: “That in this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction for quashing the communication made by the respondent no.1 addressed to the respondent no. 3, a copy of which is marked to the petitioner, whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s representation has been disposed off pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 3.1.2002 in C.W.J.C.No. 13566/2001 stating therein that as the State Government has not sanctioned the new posts, petitioner’s re- appointment is not immediately possible. However, if there is any vacancy in future, the respondent no.3 shall give preference to the petitioner’s case. The petitioner 2 further prays for a direction to the respondent authorities for re- consideration of his case as above communication of respondent no.1 dated 1.8.2003 is based on incorrect facts as number of sanctioned Class III posts are lying vacant in B.S.College, Danapur. The petitioner further prays for a direction commanding the respondent authorities to consider his case afresh and re- appoint him against the sanctioned vacant Class III post in B.S.College, Danapur.” this Court is of the opinion that a direction has been issued by this Court on 3.1.2001 in C.W.J.C.No. 13566/2001 to examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of afresh development which had taken place after rejection of his writ petition and the Special Leave petition before the Supreme Court, namely, by way of appointment to a similarly situated person, Surajdeo Singh on 31.5.2000 the University was required either to file an exhaustive counter affidavit replying this aspect of the matter and specifically raised in paragraphs no. 27 and 28 of the writ application, which for the sake of clarity 3 is quoted hereinbelow: “27. That in this regard it is further relevant to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that one Suryadeo Singh is similarly situated that of the petitioner. Alike the petitioner, his service was also terminated by a common order and Suryadeo Singh was also one of the petitioners in the earlier writ application. Suryadeo Singh made representation to the Vice Chancellor on 3.3.2000. In his representation he has stated that several posts of Routine Clerk and Store Keeper are vacant and therefore, his case should be considered for appointment. 28. That the Registrar of the University by his order dated 31.5.2000 addressed to the Principal, B.S.College, Danapur, has directed to appoint Shri Suryadeo Singh as a fresh service on the post of Store-keeper. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the Registrar of the University, Shri Suryadeo Singh was appointed by the Principal and the Principal further reported to the Registrar that Shri Suryadeo Singh has joined the college as Store Keeper.” From the reading of the counter 4 affidavit, it is absolutely clear that a mere lip service has been done by the respondent Magadh University which has merely relied on an order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 2.11.2010 to justify the stand of the University taken in the counter affidavit for rejecting the case of the petitioner for his appointment. As a matter of fact even the Vice Chancellor in the order dated 2.11.2010 has not considered the aspect relating to appointment of Surajdeo Singh, who is said to be a similarly situated person. That being so, this application is disposed of with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to consider the matter afresh and pass his fresh reasoned order without being prejudiced by his earlier order dated 2.11.2010 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order after taking into account that if it is found that the petitioner cannot be appointed for want of sanctioned post as has been mentioned in his earlier order dated 2.11.2010, the same yardstick should be followed for one and all who were earlier 5 terminated alongwith the petitioner inasmuch as this Court cannot give a direction for perpetuating illegality by way of appointment of the petitioner against an unsanctioned post and therefore, the services of any and every person alike the petitioner, who is continuing in the college of the petitioner against an unsanctioned post, must be terminated forthwith. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/