IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4795 of 2008 Dr. Akhileshwar Prasad Choudhary, son of Late Baidynath Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Kashipur Ward No. 14, Town & District Samastipur……………………………...Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajendra Agriculture University through its Registrar at Pusa, Samastipur. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. The Comptroller, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur. 4. The Director, Administration, Rajendra Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur. 5. The Principal, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi, District Muzaffarpur……………………………………………....Respondents ---------------------------------- 4 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Out of three prayers made in paragraph 1 of the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not press prayer no. (b) in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Agricultural University Vs. Ashok Kumar Prasad, reported in 2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases 730. So far as prayer no. (a) in respect of grant of two advance increments with effect from 1985 i.e. the date petitioner had obtained Ph.D. degree, as sanctioned by the Vice-Chancellor, vide office order 2 no.18 communicated through Letter no.116 dated 05.05.2006 is concerned, petitioner in paragraph 5 of his rejoinder to the counter affidavit has named as many as ten teachers of the University who had been granted the benefits of the said scheme under identical circumstances. Learned counsel for the University submits that the University will examine the matter and if the said ten teachers have been allowed the benefits, petitioner shall also be allowed the same. Let the University do so within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. So far as prayer no. (c) in respect of grant of career advancement on account of interview faced on 04.10.2004 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know that it was withheld by the respondents only on account of the fact that annual assessment report of petitioner for the year 2001-02 was not available before the Interview Board. He submits that the moment Principal of the College came to 3 know about the same, he has forwarded the same to the University through letter no.123 PC dated 23.11.2004 with intimation to the petitioner through letter dated 06.12.2004. He submits that the same being available in the University, a decision should be taken by the University in the matter. Learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement made in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. However, two parts of the last line of the said paragraph are self-contradictory and therefore, the same are ignored. The University is directed to take a final decision in respect of the said prayer of the petitioner also within three months. The writ application is, thus, disposed of with a direction to the University to act, as indicated above, within the time, as stipulated in this order, after receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)