IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11244 of 2008 SUBHASH KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM RAKSHA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-KHIDAR CHAK, P.S.-RAHUYEE, DISTRICT- NALANDA. ………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 25.07.2011 As per the pleadings of the petitioner, he was appointed in 1986 in the College on oral orders of the Principal. Thereafter, on 20.08.1992, he was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the post of Lab Assistant. In support of the same the document is annexed as Annexure-2, which is a handwritten application of the petitioner addressed to the Principal of the College on which there is a noting dated 20.08.1992 to allow the petitioner to work on daily wages. This noting, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, is of the Vice- Chancellor. Thereafter, as per his own pleading, petitioner received salary up to April, 1993 and since May, 1993 he has not received any salary. Though it is said that 2 the petitioner’s service book was opened on 05.01.1996, vide service book no.C/18/96, but still payment was not made to him. Apparently, the appointment of the petitioner is illegal and in the teeth of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, he has also not been paid his salary since May, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order passed in LPA no.36 of 1994 by a Full Bench reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 509. It was laid down by the Full Bench that, if the appointments have been made in accordance with law, it was not open to the State Government to question the validity of the same with reference to Section 35(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, on the ground that no prior approval or sanction of post was obtained from the State Government. The Full Bench held that since staffing pattern had already been laid down for the Colleges, the post shall be deemed sanctioned and, if an incumbent was appointed on the post validly no prior sanction of the Government is required in the matter. 3 The Full Bench judgment is not applicable at all in this case and it is not a question of appointment on a deemed sanction post. It is the question of very validity of the appointment of the petitioner. It is apparent from the face of the record that Petitioner was illegally appointed. He has also not been paid salary since May, 1993 for which he has moved this Court in 2008. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the writ application is devoid of merits and also suffers from gross delay and laches and the same is therefore dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)