IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.10977 OF 2007. AWADH KISHORE PRASAD, S/O LATE LAXAMAN DAS, R/O VILLAGE CHAK LODIPUR, POLICE STATION EKANGARSARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA AT PRESENT WORKING AS HEAD ASSISTANT, S.S. COLLEGE, JEHANABAD, POLICE STATION JEHANABAD, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODY GAYA, THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA. 2.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA. 3.THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA. 4.THE GOVERNING BODY, SWAMI SAHJANAND COLLEGE, JEHANABAD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SWAMI SAHJANAND COLLEGE, JEHANABAD. 5.THE PRINCIPAL, SWAMI SAHJANAND COLLEGE, JEHANABAD. 6.SRI RAMADHAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE VIJAY RAGHAV SARAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE SINDHAWARI, POLICE STATION KOEAH(TEKARI), DISTRICT GAYA AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, S.S. COLLEGE, JEHANABAD. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 06/ 14.12.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 6 are continuing in service inasmuch as both of them have retired, this Court would not now like to go into the issue as to whether the promotion of the respondent no. 6, on the post of head clerk in Swami Sahajanand College, Jehanabad a constituent unit of Magadh University was justified inasmuch as it has become academic specially 2 when the petitioner also could not have claimed promotion on the said post of head clerk by way of right. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner like the respondent no. 6 was working only as a clerk in the College and therefore, if the petitioner was allowed to remain in the general section and also given charge of the post of head clerk by way of interim arrangement that cannot make him rightful claimant of the post of head clerk in isolation specially when it is also not denied that respondent no. 6 also was a clerk though his services were utilized mostly in library of the College. The cadre of the clerk being one, if promotion ultimately of respondent no. 6 was given by treating him to be senior to the petitioner, that cannot be now questioned by the petitioner specially when he had also been given his promotion subsequently in the year 2009 in his normal turn. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)