IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20293 of 2010 Dr.Shripati Tripathi S/O Late Gangadhar Sharma R/O Vill.- Takkipur, P.S.-Murliganj, Distt.-Siwan. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga through Its Registrar. 4. Vice Chancellor, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. 5. Registrar, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate For the State: Mr. Prashant Sinha, AC to GP 1 For University: M/s. K.N.Singh, Sr. Advocate & H.P.Singh, Advocate ----------- 5. 26.7.2011 I.A. No. 1722 of 2011: The interlocutory application has been filed for amending the prayer made in the writ petition so as to quash the order dated 28.1.2011 issued by the University by which it has been directed to make recovery at the rate of 25% of the salary or a maximum of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on monthly basis from the salary of the petitioner of the excess payment made to the petitioner and for further consequential reliefs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. 2 I.A. No. 1722/2011 is accordingly disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and the University. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing that part of the office order dated 8.10.2010 by which the date of promotion of the petitioner in the rank of Reader has been shifted from 1.1.1988 to 5.8.1990 and the date of promotion in the rank of University Professor had been shifted from 1.1.1996 to 5.8.1998 and further for quashing the office order dated 3.11.2010 issued by the University by which it was stated that the Vice-Chancellor had cancelled the promotion granted to the petitioner in terms of the Merit Promotion Scheme as also for quashing the office order dated 28.1.2011 by which it has been directed to make recovery at the rate of 25% of the salary or a maximum of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on monthly basis from the salary of the petitioner and for further consequential reliefs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made various submissions in the matter. However, in view of 3 the order that this Court intends to pass, the entire arguments need not be gone into. The main thrust of the petitioner’s case is that show cause dated 22.7.2010 was issued to the petitioner in which it was stated that in terms of the three Regularization Statutes his matter has wrongly been considered and as a result of which his date of promotion as Reader would be liable to be shifted to 5.8.1990 (TPS). The petitioner was accordingly directed to file his reply to the same. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause in which it was his clear stand that he was never appointed as a temporary lecturer and his case never fell under any of the three Regularization Statutes. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the show cause has been issued in terms of a large number of cases, which were being considered on the basis of orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 5859/1996 and by the Apex Court in SLP No. 24570/2008, the respondent without making any distinction of the case of the petitioner from those who were actually covered by the said decisions and in whose cases the Regularization 4 Statutes may have been wrongly applied, issued a general show cause without applying their mind to the fact of the petitioner’s case and the impugned orders have also been wrongly passed which have no connection to the wrong application of the Regularization Statutes. It is thus submitted that any such order passed on the basis of a misleading show cause cannot be permitted to stand and should be quashed. Learned counsel for the University fairly admits that from the impugned orders it does not appear that the decision has been taken in terms of the Regularization Statutes. In the above circumstances, the impugned orders dated 8.10.2010 and 3.11.2010 passed on the basis of a show cause dated 22.7.2010 which does not advert to the grounds which the petitioner has to meet and on the basis of which action has been taken by the University-authorities, are fit to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed in so far as they concern the petitioner. The consequential order dated 28.1.2011 issued by the University directing to make recovery 5 from the salary of the petitioner shall also stand quashed and the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ application is, accordingly allowed. However, it would be open to the authorities of the respondent-University to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)