IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17103 of 2008 1. Satya Narayan Singh son of late Sheodatt Singh, Resident of village- Sherpur, P.S. and P.O.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 2. Doma Ram Gupta, son of Late Badri Ram Gupta, Resident of Mohania Bari Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur (Bhabhua). Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal S.V. Patel College, Bhabhua. 3. The Vice-Chancellor Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur at Arrah. 4. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University Bhojpur at Arrah. 5. The Secretary, Human Resources Development (High Education), Bihar, Patna. 6. The Director, Human Resources Development (High Education), Bihar, Patna. ----------- 5 11.11.2011 By Annexure-3, the Principal of the College has forwarded the names of 11 Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory In- charge/Laboratory Technicians to the University. It is stated that the names were forwarded with details of service for the purposes of their re-designation as Demonstrator. Apparently, vide Annexure-5, out of the 11, 5 were re-designated as Demonstrators by the University. The grievance of the petitioners is that although they were also identically situated, but they were not re-designated. A counter affidavit has been filed in the case and learned counsel for the 2 University submits that the persons whose initial appointments were on other posts and whose subsequently became Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory In-Charge/Laboratory Technicians have not been re-designated as Demonstrators. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in reply to the counter affidavit today. In the supplementary affidavit, it is specifically stated that out of the said 5 persons, who were re-designated as Demonstrators, 3 persons namely, Chandra Moulish Kumar, Raj Kishore Prasad and Om Prakash singh were also initially appointed as Store-Keeper etc. and were later on became Laboratory Assistants/Laboratory In-Charge/Laboratory Technicians. Subsequently, they have been re-designated as Demonstrators. It is submitted that the petitioners were also initially appointed as Typists and later on became Laboratory Assistants. Hence, there cases were identical to the said 3 persons and hence they should have also been re- designated as Demonstrators. It is stated in the supplementary affidavit that the 3 representations of the petitioners are pending with the University officials. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ application may be disposed of and the University officials may be directed to consider and compare the cases of the petitioners with the cases of the said 3 persons and, if the petitioners’ cases are found identical, they should also be considered for re-designation as Demonstrator. In the circumstances, instead of keeping the writ application pending for reply to the supplementary affidavit, it is disposed of with a direction to the Vice- Chancellor to compare the cases of two petitioners vis-à-vis the said 3 persons and, if in the comparison it is found that the cases of the petitioners are identical to the cases of the said three persons, the Vice-Chancellor is directed to pass similar orders in their favour also as passed in the cases of the said 3 persons. This exercise must be completed and final orders must be passed within two months from the 4 date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that, in case, the Vice-Chancellor does not find the cases of the petitioners identical to the said 3 persons, he shall pass specific reasoned order for the same which shall be communicated to the petitioners within the same very period. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)