IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 240 of 2009 SHAILENDRA KUMAR, SON OF SRI HARIDAY NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BISHANPUR TAPA, POST-JALALPUR TAPA, P.S. – CHANDI, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR AT ARRAH AT PRESENT POSTED AS COMMERCE INSTRUCTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IN S.N.S.R.K.S. COLLEGE SAHARSA, P.S.- SAHARSA, DISTRICT – SAHARSA …………………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. B. N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, B. N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA 3. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N.S.R.K.S. COLLEGE, SAHARSA 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA – 1 5. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA – 1 …………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. C. M. Chaurasia, Adv. For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, AC to GP-4 For the University: Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Adv. *********** 05. 11.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as counsel, representing B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura. Petitioner is working on the post of Instructor in the Department of Commerce in S.N.S.R.K.S. College Saharsa, which is a constituent unit of B. N. Mandal University, Madhepura. He is working against the sanctioned post of Commerce Instructor, since 30.12.1984. Prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding the Respondents to 2 redesignate the post of Commerce Instructor as Demonstrator and to sanction pay-scale of Demonstrator with effect from the date of appointment of the petitioner. This prayer has been made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 387 of 1995 (R), dated 07.09.1995 (Annexure – 6) and the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4215-16 of 2002, dated 22.07.2002 (Annexure-7). The judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 387 of 1995 (R) was passed by the Ranchi Bench, placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2530 of 1993, disposed of on 26.07.1994. Admitted fact is that Ranchi High Court as well as Supreme Court had passed Order in favour of the petitioners, in view of the State Government‟s notification, whereby a decision had been taken to redesignate the post of Lab Assistant, Junior Lab Assistant, Lab In-charge, Lab Technician as Demonstrator. Notification had been issued by the State Government in order to remove the stagnation, being faced by persons, like petitioner. Even though, they were qualified and also teaching the students, they used to superannuate from the post, doing the same kind of job from the date of their appointment, till the date of 3 their superannuation. The Ranchi Bench also noticed that petitioners in that case, were highly qualified and they were doing the same job with same responsibility as the Demonstrator were doing. Once they are designated as Demonstrator, having qualification, they can be promoted as Lecturer. So far the present petitioner is concerned, he is an Instructor in Commerce Department and the notification of the Government regarding redesignating the post mentioned in the notification as Demonstrator do not include the post of Instructor. In this view of the matter, unless, the State Government will consider and include post of Instructor in the Commerce and other Departments (not connected with the Science and Technology), also for being redesignated as post of Demonstrator, no direction can be issued for redesignation of his post as a post of Demonstrator. Petitioner has placed reliance on that part of the judgment, annexed as Annexure -6, where extracted passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court has been quoted. In that passage, the word “Instructor” has also been included for being redesignated as Demonstrator‟s post, for the reason that under University‟s Act, definiation of word “Teacher” also 4 includes “Instructor”. Since, Instructor is within the definition of „Teacher‟, like Demonstrator, then there is no reason for not considering the case of persons like petitioner, who are „Instructor‟ for being designated as „Demonstrator‟. I find that the Ranchi Bench had also not issued any specific direction to the University or to the State Government for redesignating the post of Instructor. The post of Lab Assistant, Laboratory In- charge, Laboratory Technician and Laboratory Instructor as Demonstrator, but a simple direction was issued to the State Government to take final decision in this matter, as the University has also supported the case of petitioner. So far the present case is concerned, University‟s Counter Affidavit is not in support of the petitioner. The State Government has also not taken any positive stand in this regard. But I find that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Ranchi Bench, annexed as Annexure – 6 and 7, respectively with this Writ Application. Petitioner‟s case needs consideration by the State. Petitioner‟s representation (Annexure-12) in this regard is pending for consideration before the Director, Higher Education, Human Resources 5 Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. This application is being disposed of directing the Secretary and the Director, Human Resources Development Department, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the decision taken in C.W.J.C. No. 387 of 1995 (R). Decision must be taken by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within 3 months from the date of production / communication of this Order. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)