IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15213 of 2010 1. KRISHNA MURARI PRASAD S/O LATE PRAYAG NARAYAN PRASAD R/O NIRMAL KUTIR, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- MUNGER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT AT RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 2. AMARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY S/O LATE JAGDISH PANDEY R/O VILL.- MORIAWAN, P.O.- DATIANA, P.S.- BIKRAM, DISTT.- PATNA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT AT RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 3. REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 4. DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 6. COMPTROLLER, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR 7. BINOD PRASAD S/O SHRI YOGESHWAR PRASAD R/O VILL.- NAUROJPUR, P.O.- BARBIGHA, DISTT.- NALANDA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT AT V.C. CELL, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2 27/04/2011 An impression was sought to be created at the Bar that Annexure-23 dated 28.07.2010 is not strictly in conformity with the observation made by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4484 of 2002 which was filed by the private respondent, namely, Binod Prasad but on a closer - 2 - reading of the entire order contained in annexure-20, the stand of the petitioners does not seem to be correct. The benefit of promotion has to accrue in favour of the private respondent because the admitted position even in the writ application filed earlier was that he was senior to the two petitioners who are before this Court. Looking at the time frame when the benefit of appointment was granted to these two petitioners and the magnanimity shown by the private respondent who had no personal grudge or agenda against the two petitioners, the submission was made at the Bar that it is the best left to the University to accommodate them if they could do so but that would not be at the cost of the private respondent. Annexure-23 is fall out of the order passed in Annexure-20 and to that extent cannot be termed to be arbitrary, irrational or violative of any right of the petitioners as such. So far as the jugglery with the post and accommodation of the petitioners on the post on the vacant position existing in the University is concerned, there cannot be an occasion for this Court to go into all that exercise because the employer knows best and may - 3 - with some insight and information from the eye of the present petitioners they can come to a different decision on this score. Decision on this score can be reached by the respondents provided the petitioners move them. Let the two petitioners, therefore, provide all the nuggets of wisdom to the respondent University authorities who will consider the same on its own merit and come out with their final opinion on the issue which may be communicated to the petitioners as well within a reasonable time frame. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)