IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13071 of 2004 DEO NARAIN MANDAL, SON OF BASUDEO MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O:- KALGIGANJ, P.S:- KALGAON, IN THE DISTRICT:- BHAGALPUR. ........PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE TILKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. 3.VICE CHANCELLOR OF TILKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR. 4.THE REGISTRAR TILKAMANJHI BHAGALPUR UNIVERSITY, BHAGALPUR. 5.THE PRINCIPAL SHANKER SAH VIKRAMSHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA KAHALGAON(BHAGALPUR) E. RLY. ..........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 6/ 20.12.2010 The petitioner was working in Shankar Sah Vikramshila Mahavidayalaya, Kahalgaon (Bhagalpur) and purportedly claims that he, on an advertisement dated 02.01.1979 published by Secretary, Shankar Sah Vikramshila Mahavidayalaya, Kahalgaon (Bhagalpur) applied for a Class-III post. The appointment of the petitioner on Class- III post was made on daily wages. At that stage, it appears, there is no sanctioned post, latter with the introduction of the staffing pattern posts were sanctioned. Although, those persons who were working on daily wages had to face an examination for the purposes of qualifying for the appointment to the post of Clerk in the colleges of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University. The petitioner applied and competed in the said examination. A list of the successful candidates was published, in pursuance of which, petitioner was appointed as a clerk. The said appointments were challenged before the Chancellor and the Chancellor by order dated 03.12.2005 asked the University to make a fresh recommendation to the State Government with regard to Class-III and Class-IV employees of the University from the list of persons, who were appointed on daily wages in accordance with their seniority and staffing pattern. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Chancellor, a fresh panel for appointment of daily wagers working in different colleges of Tilka Manjhi University was prepared. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that without hearing the petitioner and without considering the fact that the petitioner had qualified in the examination held by the University, the Chancellor had asked the University to revise the list of persons who had earlier competed for the Class-III posts. Counsel for the State submits that the list has been revised and approved by the State Government in the year-2006 and as such the petitioner does not have any claim to be considered for appointment to the said post. Apart from which it is said that the petitioner was in fact not working in the college concerned between the period from 30.08.1999 to 09.07.2002 as represented by the Principals of the concerned college. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid fact. This Court cannot pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner as there are several disputed facts in this matter. The petitioner has also not challenged the order of the Chancellor. Nothing has been brought on record regarding the circumstances in which the list was revised. I therefore order the petitioner to file an application before the Vice- Chancellor for considering the grievances of the petitioner. The Principal of the college shall send a report as to whether the petitioner was working on the said post on daily wages to the Vice-Chancellor, the Principal of the college must affirm whether the petitioner had worked continuously from the period of 1979 to 2006 i.e on the date on which the list was revised. There are several grey areas in the pleadings of both the petitioner and the State. It is a little surprising that persons who had competed in the examination should be left out, unless the examination itself was doctored or a farce. The matter needs to be scrutinized, as the list of candidates had obviously been forwarded on the recommendation of the Principal of the college to the Vice-Chancellor. So be it, the Vice-Chancellor may examine the entire matter and pass an appropriate orders within four weeks of the receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to produce the copy of this order within a period of eight weeks of its receipt. Ranjan (Sheema Ali Khan,J)