IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10382 of 2002 KRISHNA GOPAL SINGH, son of late Surendra Nath Singh, Resident of village and P.S. sonepur, District- Chapra, at present Lecturer in the Department of Zoology, Purvotar Railway College, Sonepur at Chapra. Versus 1.THE JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, Chapra, through its Registrar. 2.The Vice Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 3.The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Chapra. 4.The College Service Commission, through its Secretary, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 5.The Secretary, College Service Commission, Boring Canal Road, Patna. 6.The Governing Body of Purvottar Railway College, Sonepur, through its Secretary. 7.The Secretary, Governing Body, Purvottar Railway College, sonepur at Chapra. 8.The Principal, Purvottar Railway College, Sonepur at Chapra. 9.Shri Braj Kishore Prasad singh, son of name not known to the petitioner, presently working as Lecturer in the Department of zoolygy, Purvottar Railway College, sonepur, P.S. Sonepur, District Saran (Chapra). 10.Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, son of Lalan Prasad Singh, Presently working as Lecturer, Department of zoology, Purvottar Railway College, Sonepur, P.S. Sonepur, District-Saran (Chapra). ----------- 4 29/6/2010 Heard Dr. S.N.Jha, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Upadhayay for the petitioner, Mr. Bishwanath Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.10 and the counsel appearing on behalf of Jai Prakash University. Originally prayer made in this writ application by the petitioner was to the following effect:- “(i)For issuance of an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as senior most teacher working on the first post in the department of Zoology in Purvottar Railway College, Sonepur, at Chapra. (ii)For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus 2 commanding the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits of the first post of Zoology in the college in question. (iii)For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the recommendation of the College Service Commission for 2nd, 3rd and 4th post dated 4.6.1997 as the same has been issued without following the reservation policy. (iv)For issuance of an appropriate declaration that the appointment of respondent nos. 9 and 10 are not made in accordance with the law and they cannot claim seniority over the petitioner.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, by giving up the aforementioned prayer would only submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Demonstrator in Purvottar Railway College, an affiliated College of J.P. University, but in terms of the statutes framed by the Chancellor the governing body of the College has upgraded the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. He would, therefore, submit that such proposal of the governing body of the College is awaiting approval/final decision of the University. Mr. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.10, on the other hand, would contend that irrespective of such decision of the governing body the petitioner is still continuing to work as Demonstrator in the College. In view of the limited prayer now by the writ petitioner that he would like his case for up gradation from the post of Demonstrator to Lecturer to be considered by the University in terms of the statutes, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file an independent representation to the Vice- Chancellor of the University, who thereafter will take his decision 3 in accordance with law and in particular in the light of the provisions of section 57 A of the Bihar State Universities Act along with the statutes framed by the Chancellor. If by virtue of such decision the petitioner would in any way affect the seniority or continuation of respondent no.10, such decision by the Vice- Chancellor of the University would be taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.10. Let it be made clear that this Court has not gone into the inter-se merits of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.10 and has only remanded the matter back to the University as it is the University which has to take final decision with regard to approval on the post of Lecturer as claimed by the petitioner. It is expected that the University shall take such decision expeditiously. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)