IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12122 of 2009 AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O SRI GHANSHYAM PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE +P.O PAKRA, PS- NAUGACHIA, DISTT-BHAGALPUR------ -------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLAR, TILKA MANJHI, BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 3. THE REGISTRAR, TILKA MANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 4. THE FINANCE OFFIER, TILKA MANJHI UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR 5. THE PRINCIPAL, MADAN AHILYA MAHILA COLLEGE, NAUGACHIA, BHAGALPUR---------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhruba Mukherjee, Advocate For the State: Mr. Kumar Vikram, J.C. to SC-10 For Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, Advocate ------------ 5 14.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ application was instituted by the petitioner on 10.9.2009 when annexure-14 came to be issued to him which was a kind of show cause addressed to him in the background of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the report of Hon’ble Agrawal Commission with regard to the status of the teachers who were appointed already or were regularized under 4th phase constituent college. There was reason for the petitioner to rush to High Court for the simple reason that the notice was issued in a mechanical fashion in a cyclostyled form with standard grounds stated therein, which only showed that these notices were issued without application of mind to the persons to whom it was addressed. Be that as it may, certain further developments have taken place not only with regard to the petitioner but other teachers as well. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit - 2 - through which he has brought final decision and notification where the name of the petitioner figured as a teacher who came to be appointed in M.A. Mahila College, Naugachia on the post of lecturer in Hindi against sanctioned post. Some of these decisions taken are annexure-20 issued by Vice Chancellor of the University, Annexure-19/A as well as Annexure-19 itself. In otherwords due to subsequent developments the so called notice dated 23.5.2008 contained in annexure-14 which was the subject matter of challenge has lost its meaning. The right and status of the petitioner has been settled as such by the university authority. Learned counsel representing the university raises certain technical objection against the maintainability of the writ or efficacy of the jurisdiction of the writ. He submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the show cause now and therefore the writ should be dismissed or petitioner relegated to the authority concerned to show cause. Further if the rest of the assertions made in the supplementary affidavit are correct then he ought to have withdrawn the writ application because he has already been granted relief and no adjudication is required to be made by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that so far as first objection of the university is concerned the counsel could be correct as the issue has ended into adjudication and therefore it has lost its meaning. But his concern - 3 - is that since he has approached the High Court and if adjudication or observation is made by the High Court with regard to annexure- 14 then it is likely to be misinterpreted by the university that no relief has been granted by the Court. It is in this background he has reiterated even in his supplementary affidavit that impugned order contained in annexure-14 is bad and it should be quashed as it has lost its efficacy. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner because even if issues are settled and no adjudication is made by the Court with regard to annexure-14 the petitioner can be harassed by the authority by saying that no relief has been granted to him even if he had approached the High Court on the issue. In that background it is categorically held that annexure-14 is not only fit to be quashed but is also declared to be non est in so far as it relates to petitioner in view of the subsequent decisions taken by the Vice Chancellor and/or other authority and communications made thereto. Further in view of the communications contained in annexure-19 issued by the university authority specially the Registrar which is dated 13.7.1010, the Principal of M.A. Mahila College, Naugachia as well as the Registrar of the University are hereby directed to ensure that the petitioner is now paid not only the salary which has not been paid because of the various enquiry which was going on the issue but will also be paid his current - 4 - salary on the regular post. The Court expects that follow up action will be taken within the period of three months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)