IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5055 of 2007 Suresh Prasad Yadav, son of late Shiv Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village Karhiya, P.S. Sour Bazar, Dist. Saharsa. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura through its Register. 2. The Chancellor, University of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 4. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 5. Hira Kant Mandal, Son of late Parmeshwari Prasad Mandal, Professor Incharge, B.N.M.V. College, Sahugarh, Madhepura. ---------- Respondents ----------- 3 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on respondent no.5, no one has appeared in this case. At the outset, Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ application with regard to the holding of the post of In- charge Principal in the B.N.M.V. College, Sahugarh, Madhepura, has become academic, inasmuch as, a regular principal has already been appointed but, then, the petitioner has apprehension that even in future he despite holding the post of Reader and the Respondent no. 5 holding the substantive post of 2 Lecturer may be wronged in the same manner by holding and describing him to be junior to the respondent no.5 even when, the principle of deciding such interse seniority for the purpose of incharge principal/professor incharge stands settled in the two order of the learned Chancellor as contained in Anenxure-8 and 9 to this writ application. In the considered opinion of this Court, though no anticipatory writ can be issued but then the petitioner’s grievance against the impugned order of the learned Chancellor seems to be correct, inasmuch as, in the order of the learned Chancellor, the most vital aspect of determining the inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 has been ignored. The petitioner admittedly had been promoted to the post of Reader, whereas, the respondent no.5 had continued to be Lecturer on the day he is preference to the petitioner, was made the In-charge Principal of the college. It is well settled that seniority has to be always reckoned in a cadre and thus when the petitioner got promoted from the post of 3 Lecturer to the post of Reader, there would be no question of deciding their inter-se seniority of the post of Lecturer. The position, however, would be different, if the respondent no.5 also could have been promoted on the post of Reader from the same date as that of the petitioner in which the seniority of the post of Lecturer could have become relevant. That being so, this Court would set aside the order of the learned Chancellor dated 8.2.2007 and remit the matter back to the learned Chancellor to decide the inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.5 after affording an opportunity of hearing to both of them and also by taking into account the orders contained in Annexure 8 and 9 to this writ application. It is, however, made clear that if in the mean time, the respondent no.5 has also been promoted on the post of Reader with effect from any date earlier to the date of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Reader, the learned Chancellor shall take 4 even that aspect into consideration, while taking a final decision, the learned Chancellor will also take into account the inter-se seniority of the petitioner vis-à- vis respondent no.5 and due consideration would be given to the earlier order of the learned Chancellor in the cases of Prof. J.C. Mishra and others of S.P. College, Dumka dated 16.1.1999 (Annexure-8) as also in the case of Dr. Anant Kumar Thakur, University Thakur in History, Marwari College, Kishanganj dated 17.1.2004 (Annexure-9). With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)