IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13567 of 2000 1. Ramasish Sinha Kushwaha, son of Chulhai Sinha, resident of village Mainapatti, P.O. Maheshwara, P.S. Babubarhi, District Madhubani 2. Surendra Kumar Yadav, son of Ram Lakhan Yadav, resident of Vishnupur, P.S. Ladania, District Madhubani … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department (Higher Education) Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director (Higher Education) Human Resources Development Department, Vikash Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 3. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar Darbhanga through its Registrar 4. Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga 5. Principal, C.M.J. College, Donwari Hat Khutauna, P.S. Babubarhi, District Madhubani … Respondents ----------- 13. 27.6.2011 Having heard Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for L.N.Mithila University this Court would find it very difficult to issue a writ of mandamus of absorbing the petitioners in the services of the University, inasmuch as there has been a specific stand of the respondent University in its counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioners was made by the governing body of the affiliated College against unsanctioned post. It is not in doubt that the claim 2 of the petitioner for appointment in the College against non-teaching post of Clerk is based on the premises that the governing body of the affiliated College had appointed them on 16.2.1978. Such College became constituent unit of the University with effect from 25.11.1980 and just before the College had become constituent the State Government had sanctioned only four Class III post and eight Class IV post of this College. Obviously the petitioners’ services if at all found to be validly appointed by erst-while governing body had to be absorbed against these sanctioned post. The finding, as recorded above, of the University, however, is that their appointment was made against unsanctioned post. Mr. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would then contend that he is in custody of a report of the officials of the University dated 1.9.1992 which would go to show that the petitioners’ absorption was possible as they would be deemed to have been appointed against sanctioned post. In the opinion of this Court, the mere proposal regarding creation 3 and sanction of post as per the staffing pattern cannot be treated to be the deemed sanctioned posts, inasmuch as prior specific approval of the Government is required. In the 1992 report on which Mr. Vidya Sagar has heavily relied, itself mentions that such post though recommended by the University was yet to be sanctioned by the State Government as per prescribed staffing pattern. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a communication of the State Government dated 15th July, 2000 to show that the State Government had ultimately sanctioned 26 Class III post including one post of U.D. Assistant, one post of Correspondence Clerk and three post of Counter Clerk. He would submit that as against these posts the petitioners services could have been regularized, inasmuch as juniors to the petitioners have been absorbed in the services of the University. In the considered opinion of this Court when the University has taken a categorical stand that these petitioners were appointed against unsanctioned post and 4 as such, their absorption was not possible due to want of sanctioned post, this Court in absence of clinching materials that these petitioners were appointed against sanctioned post cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing them to absorb them in the services of the University. As noted above, learned counsel for the petitioners, has himself submitted that the petitioners on the basis of the aforementioned report dated 1.9.1992 of the University would be in a position to demonstrate that they were working against sanctioned post and that the University ought to have exercise its power under section 4(1)(14) of the Act to absorb their services. In that view of the matter, this Court can only give liberty to the petitioners to approach the Registrar of the University by producing the relevant documents/ evidence that their appointment was made by the affiliated College in the year 1978 in the prescribed manner against sanctioned post and that they ought to have been absorbed in the services under section 4(1)(14) of the Act in preference to others 5 who were junior to the petitioners. This Court would, however, immediately make it clear that it has not gone into the merits of such claim of the petitioners nor this Court has accepted the correctness of the aforementioned enquiry report of the officials of the University dated 1.9.1992 but then keeping in view that the petitioners have constantly been approaching the authorities as also this Court right from 1980 onwards and they have not been given a conclusive decision, this Court would only expect that the respondent University and its officials would consider all aspects sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners in their separate representation and pass a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 6