IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14402 of 2007 Krishnanand Jha, son of late Jageshwar Jha, resident of Village Gosaini Gaon, Police Station Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur. ----- Petitioner Versus 1. The Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Vice Chancellor. 2. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary to the Government, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 5. The Finance Officer, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur. 6. The Principal G.D. College, Naugachhiya, Bhagalpur. -------- Respondents ----------- 4 01.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the writ petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) For deciding that the petitioner is already re-designated as Demonstrator in Physics Department of the College from his post of Laboratory in-charge as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and guidelines of the Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar and was rightly included in the list of the Re- designated Demonstrator with the notification no. 260/06 dated 28.11.2006 as such, his name can not be omitted from any subsequent list of Demonstrator (Re-designated) in Physics in the College. (ii) For commanding the respondent to 2 include the name of the petitioner in the list of demonstrator notified subsequently by the University vide Office Order No. 177/07 dated 5.7.2007 wherein all other similarly situated laboratory in-charge in the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as the University) who were re- designated as Demonstrator in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and direction contained in the letter No. 115 dated 14.6.2006 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Bihar inasmuch as the petitioner after having been screened and found fit was earlier re-designated as Demonstrator and included in the list of the demonstrator in Physics vide Officer Order No. 260/2006 dated 28.11.2006 issued by the Registrar of the University have been included but the name of the petitioner has been omitted without any rhyme or reason. (iii) For holding that the petitioner once having been screened and found fulfilling the eligibility criteria and Parameters for being designated as Demonstrator and was included in the list of Demonstrator by the University 3 vide Officer Order No. 260/06 dated 28.11.2006 is entitled to be included in subsequent list or any other list of Demonstrator in the University including the list brought and alongwith the notification vide Office Order No. 177/07 dated 5.7.2007. (iii) For holding that the Officer Order No. 177/2007 dated 5.7.2007 issued by the Registrar of the University omitting the name of the petitioner as re- designator from the laboratory in-charge whereas he was declared to be a re-designated Demonstrator and included in the list vide office order No. 26/07 dated 28.11.2006 amounts to demotion of the petitioner to the inferior rank of laboratory in-charge with lower pay scale without any notice and reason to him as such, is an illegal and arbitrary act of the respondent. (iv) For commanding the respondent to treat and allow the petitioner to act and discharge the duties of the Demonstrator and pay him the salary admissible to the re- designated Demonstrator without any hindrance. (v) For restraining the respondents from acting in any manner pre judicial to the interest of the petitioner including forcing him 4 to discharge the duties of the laboratory in-charge under his junior(s) and paying salary in the scale lesser than what is admissible to the post of Demonstrator. (vii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be deemed entitled.” As with regard to the aforementioned relief, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have categorically stated that the re-designation of the petitioner on the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Physics is not permissible, inasmuch as, he does not possesses the requisite qualification of B.Sc. Degree with Physics as one of the subjects. The categorical statement of the respondents in paragraph no.9 in this regard reads as follows:- “9. That with regard to statement made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner does not possess B.Sc. degree with Physics as one of the subjects. He was posted as Lab-in-charge in the department of Physics in the college on the basis of I.Sc. with Physics as his qualification at the time of Appointment which is the minimum requisite qualification for 5 Lab-in-Charge of Physics. Accordingly, the University vide its letter no. 2649 dated 12.9.81 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) addressed to the Principal of this college clearly stated that only these persons will be fit to be chosen for this post who will have the I.Sc. qualification in related subject. Hence the respondent University never objected on his eligibility for Lab-in-charge but has objection on his re-designation as demonstrator having been a graduate without Physics as one of the subjects which would be apparent from his B.Sc. Certificate.” The respondents have further supported the aforementioned statement with the help of the certificate of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner had passed the Bachelor of Science Examination with Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. It has to be noted that when the counter affidavit was filed by the counsel for the respondents, counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournment for filing of the rejoinder but no rejoinder has been filed till date and, therefore, the averments made in the counter affidavit remains 6 uncontroverted. That being so, if the petitioner does not possesses the requisite qualification, he cannot be entitled to hold the post of Demonstrator. This application is thus fit to be dismissed. It, however, goes without saying that the disqualification of the petitioner for holding the post of Demonstrator will not be detrimental to his continuing appointment on the post of Laboratory In-charge for which he had possessed requisite qualification and the same cannot be interfered by the University, except in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)