IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2997 of 2006 RAJU MEHTAR, son of Shri Kailash Mehtar, resident of Sabour Estate Near Panitanki, Post- Sabaur, Police Station- Sabaur, District- Bhagalpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY, Bihar through its Registrar, having its headquarter at Pusa, Samastipur. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P. O. Pusa, P. S. Pusa, District- Samastipur. 3. The Registrar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P. O. Pusa, Police station Pusa, District- Samastipur. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Recruitment, Rajendra Agricultural, Bihar, P. O. Pusa, Police Station Pusa, District- Samastipur. 5. The Associate Dean cum Principal, Bihar Agricultural College, Sabaur, Bhagalpur. …. Respondents. ----------- 2. 25.08.2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. A. K. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as the “University’). With regard to the following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application; “1. That this is an application commanding the respondent University to appoint the petitioner on the post of Camp Guard in the Bihar Agriculture College, Sabaur, pursuant to the selection and empannelement of the petitioner on the basis of Advertisement No.2/98 published for making appointment under 65% quota filled for the open market candidate on the ground that from the same panel the respondent University had appointed similarly situated other selected candidates.” 2 the simple submission of Mr. Ojha is that when the University had made an Advertisement No. 2 of 1998 for filling up the vacant Class III/IV posts in terms of order of the Supreme Court and the University in such advertisement had also proposed to follow the Government rules of reservation and roaster by way of appointing candidates also of the scheduled castes category, the ultimate action of the University in appointing other and leaving the petitioner, sole candidate of scheduled caste category, would be in teeth of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when pursuant to a direction of this Court cases of other candidates were considered for appointment, the case of the petitioner also should have been considered but as that was also not done the petitioner had to file this writ application on 2.3.2006. The things could be easier for this Court had the University taken pains to file its counter affidavit. A period of four and a half years infact has not been good enough for the University to file its counter affidavit. 3 In that view of the matter, this Court instead of keeping this writ application pending would find it more expedient in the ends of justice to direct Vice-Chancellor of the University to look into such grievance of the petitioner. If the Vice-chancellor would find that the appointment form the said panel was made of other category of candidates and the petitioner being the sole candidate of scheduled caste category, for no good reason was left out, he will consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment with prospective effect. In other words, the petitioner’s appointment will only be made from a date on which his appointment letter will be issued by the University but then in that case as the petitioner would be held to have been left out for no good reasons while making appointment from the panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement No. 2 of 1998 he will be entitled to get his seniority from the date the persons below him in the panel were appointed. At this stage, Dr. A. K. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the University intervenes to inform this Court that since the petitioner’s name was recommended 4 against a solitary post of Camp Guard, there would be no concept of any junior for the said post and therefore even if the petitioner is appointed on the said post of Camp Guard reserved for the scheduled caste category, he would not be entitled for any retrospective seniority. To the aforesaid submission of Dr. A. K. Upadhaya, counsel for the University, Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that the post of Camp Guard does exist even today and infact was also all along available for being filled up by appointing the petitioner who was the sole candidate recommended for the said post. This Court however in absence of counter affidavit would leave the matter in the hands of the Vice Chancellor with a hope and belief that he would look into this aspect and pass a reasoned order even if he chooses not to appoint the petitioner. It is however made clear that since the post of Camp Guard was not filled up and the petitioner was a sole candidate recommended against the said post which was also reserved for scheduled caste category, such appointment of the petitioner on the post 5 of Camp Guard will be made only if the said post has remained vacant and is existence after issuance of advertisement and preparation of panel. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)