IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4082 of 2006 PREM NATH DAS, son of Late Shiva Kant Das, resident of Village- Kanakpura, Post Office-Chanaura Ganj, P.S.-Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani, at present Demonstrator, Department of Physics, Chandra Mukhi Bhola College, Deorh, Ghoghardiha, Madhubani. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University through its Registrar having its headquarter at Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Post Office and Police Station-Darbhanga, District-Darbhanga. 2. The Chancellor of the University, Rajbhawan, Patna. 3. The Vice-Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Post Office and Police Station-Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. 4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Post Office and Police Station-Darbhanga, District- Darbhganga. 5. The Principal, Chandra Mukhi Bhola College, Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. 6. The Bihar State University(Constituent Colleges) Service Commission through its Chairman, Gokul Path, Shrikrishnapuri, Patna. 7. The Chairman, Bihar State University(Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Gokul Path, Shrikrishnapuri, Patna. 8. The Secretary, Bihar State University(Constituent Colleges) Service Commission, Gokul Path, Shrikrishnapuri, Patna. ………Respondents ----------- 05. 21.01.2011 In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for his absorption on the substantive post of Demonstrator in the department of Physics in the Chandra Mukhi Bhola College, Madhubani, a constituent college of Lalit Narayan Mithila University. The petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator in the department of Chemistry in Chandra Mukhi Bhola College on 19.10.1973 and at 2 the relevant point of time the college was an affiliated unit of L.N. Mithila University. Consequently the petitioner joined on 05.11.1973. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to the enactment of Bihar State University Act, 1976, the Syndicate and the University were vested with the power to create post in the College. Accordingly, in exercise of the power of the Syndicate, posts were created in the department of Chemistry in the College in question, vide letter No. 16968 dated 19.11.1973, as contained in Annexure-5. Subsequent to the creation of the post, the University Service Commission vide letter No. 1492 dated 22.03.1975 accorded concurrence for appointment of petitioner and others, as contained in Annexure-6. Petitioner was initially working as Demonstrator in the department of Chemistry and subsequently shifted in the department of Physics on appointment of one Laxmikant Jha as demonstrator in the department of Chemistry. The college in question became a constituent college on 25.11.1980. Even after the college became a constituent unit, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Demonstrator in the department of Physics. The Registrar of the University vide letter No. 1511-82/83 3 dated 15.07.1982 directed for continuance of service of the teachers including the petitioners from the date of joining or from the date of sanctioning of the post, whichever being earlier. It took the University 11 years to recommend for the absorption of the services of the petitioner, when vide Letter No. 25823 dated 20.12.1991, the University wrote to the Secretary of the University Service Commission for granting concurrence to the substantive absorption of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-9. The University sent reminder vide Letter No. 12366/2K dated 11.09.2000 as contained in Annexure-10. Subsequently vide Letter No. 91/P dated 11.03.2005, as contained in Annexure-11, the University Service Commission informed the Registrar of the University that absorption does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission. It is relevant to state here that with the abolition of the University Service Commission, the Selection Committee of the University has been empowered to make absorption. Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University admits the petitioner’s appointment on 19.10.1973 and his continuance in service, till now, as Demonstrator in the Department of Physics in a fixed scale of Rs. 5500 4 per month. He further admits that University recommended the case of the petitioner on 20.12.1991 and reminder was also sent in this regard. Ultimately on 11.03.2005, the University, without assigning any reasons has shown inability for approval of the services of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner is still working under a temporary status and getting fixed remuneration. Though no counter has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor but Mr. Shivendra Kishore appearing on behalf of the Chancellor submitted that a teacher can be appointed under the provisions of Bihar State University Act, 1976 and there is no other mode of regularization of the services of the petitioner. By referring Annexures 9 and 10, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that two Demonstrators of the Marwari College, Darbhanga were absorbed. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court fails to understand as to why the Commission/State Government did not decide the issue of absorption of the petitioner since 1973. It is absolutely unreasonable to take work from the petitioner since last more than three decades on temporary basis, which is nothing but exploitation of 5 the petitioner by the University and is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is continuing since the last three decades, meaning thereby that the University needs the services of the petitioner and the relevant post is available which necessitated the University to make the recommendation to the University Service Commission on 20.12.1991 for regularization of the petitioner. The way the petitioner has been exploited since the last three decades, is not only a shame for the University but for the State Government also. . Let Selection Committee of the Lalit Narain Mithila University, Darbhanga decide the absorption of the petitioner on the post of Demonstrator/Teacher within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the observations made above, this writ application stands allowed. Shageer ( Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)