IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1108 of 2008 Ashok Kumar, son of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, resident of Chandwa Housing Board, Quarter No.HIG-3, Ara, District- Ara …….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Vice Chancellor, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura 4.The Registrar, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura 5.The Principal, S.N.S.R.K.S. College, Saharsa, District- Saharsa ……….. Respondents. ----------- 2. 07/09/2010 Petitioner’s grievance is that the persons appointed on the non-teaching posts later than him had been absorbed in the services of the University as Laboratory Technicians. Names of the persons appointed later than petitioner have been given in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cases of each and every non- teaching employee appointed in the Colleges were considered by Justice Agrawal Commission and dealt with specifically and report was submitted. The report was finally accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997 and orders were passed on 12.10.2004. He submits that the persons who figured in `S’ & `R’ list in Justice Agrawal 2 Commission report have only to be appointed as per the report of the Commission. Petitioner’s name figure in the list of the said report. Though it is pleaded in the writ application that the petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Vice Chancellor, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection was not received by the petitioner and he was only verbally informed about the rejection. Therefore, he submits that the Vice Chancellor may be directed to communicate the reasons to the petitioner for rejection of his representation if the same has already been rejected or, if the same is pending, he should be directed to pass orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has filed representation before the Chancellor also but since petitioner’s grievance is that he has not received any order from the Vice Chancellor upon his representation, this Court disposes of this writ application with a direction to the Vice Chancellor to communicate orders passed on his representation. 3 It is made clear that this Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and the consideration is only limited to non-communication of the order of the Vice Chancellor to the petitioner. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)