IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.485 of 2009 Virendra Kumar Keshari, son of Late Ram Bhujawan Prasad resident of Village-Brahampura, P.S. Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Science and Technology, Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna 3. The Director Science and Technology, Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna 4. The Principal Bhagalpur College of Engineering, Sabour, Bhagalpur 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna … Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :-Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate For the State :-Mrigendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C.10 4 14.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.03.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8809 of 2005 wherein the grievance of the appellant was with regard to declaration of the post of draftsman as a teaching post. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the U.G.C. has categorized the post of draftsman as a non- teaching post. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition dealing with the case of Foreman. But however, the learned Single Judge has observed that as 2 the U.G.C. has categorized the post of draftsman as a non-teaching post, the appellant has no case and this Court cannot go into the question of equivalency under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 02.11.1995 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition wherein the learned Single Judge has dealt with the case of foreman including Junior and Senior Instructors but the appellant is only draftsman, and therefore, he cannot be said to be equivalent to that post. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in holding that the equivalency of the posts cannot be made applicable with the pay scales and such question cannot be interferred with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We make it clear that as the U.G.C. had categorized the post of draftsman as a non-teaching post, therefore, it is not for this Court to change the categorization as it is the wisdom of the U.G.C. which cannot be gone 3 into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)