IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13411 of 2005 1. Sanjay Kumar, S/o-Sri Hari Narayan Yadav, At & P.O.-Kolhaipatti, via- Murliganj, P.S.-Murliganj, District-Madhepura. 2. Binod Kumar Yadav, S/o-Late Sri Anirudh Prasad Yadav, R/o-Shardavilla, P.S.-Madhepura, District-Madhepura. 3. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/o-Late Saryug Prasad Yadav, resident of Ward No.1, Madhepura, P.S. & District-Madhepura. –Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Hon’ble Chancellor, Bihar, Patna. 3. The B.N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura through its Vice- Chancellor. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura. 5. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Lalu Nagar, Madhepura. –Respondents. ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Vaidahi Raman Prasad Singh, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar-II, G.A.-5. For the University : Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, Adv. ****** 11 18.05.2011 After great persuasion of this Court, the State Government acted and now counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits have been filed by the State and the University. With consent of parties, the matter has been heard at length at this stage for final disposal. In 1992 the erstwhile Lalit Narayan Mithila University was bifurcated. A part of which that fell within the district of Saharsa and Madhepura, inter alia, became part of the newly established B.N. Mandal University. The Colleges falling therein, which were constituent, became constituent Colleges of the B.N. Mandal University. The University being established no separate sanctions of posts in the University and its offices were made. The Vice- Chancellor had difficulty in carrying out day to day work. Apparently, - 2 - considering that certain posts are there available at the University office for the University the three petitioners were selected and appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, which is not in dispute. Petitioner no.1 was appointed as Administrative Officer in the University. Petitioner no.2 was appointed as Incharge Sales and Publication and petitioner no.3 was appointed as Research Officer in the University. In respect of petitioner no.3 by supplementary affidavit it has been stated that though he was designated as Research Officer, in fact, he was Research Assistant was being paid the remuneration as Research Assistant. Having worked in the University for about 5 years they were terminated. They came to this Court. This Court directed them to approach the Chancellor. They went to the Chancellor. The Chancellor was sympathetic to their grievance, but in view of the stand taken by the University before the Chancellor that on post which the petitioners have been appointed were not sanctioned posts nor within the staffing pattern, he could do little to reinstate them. The Chancellor referred the matter to the State Government for sanctioning the post on humanitarian ground. The matter lay with the State Government for over 5 years till by orders of this Court in these proceeding they were waken up to take a decision in the matter. Upon the recommendation of the Chancellor, the State Government has rejected the proposal of the Chancellor to sanction the posts on humanitarian ground, clearly stating that the petitioners were appointed against posts which were not available as per staffing pattern nor those posts were sanctioned on humanitarian ground, no - 3 - posts can be sanctioned on humanitarian ground. Thus, the solitary question before this Court whether the posts that were occupied by the petitioners were sanctioned or not. Counter affidavits was filed making a bald statement both by the State and the University that the posts were not sanctioned and they were not available. The University failed to explain as to under what circumstances the Vice-Chancellor made these appointments, though it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor while making appointment clearly mentioned that work hampered in the newly created University in absence of these officers. Now, supplementary counter affidavits have been filed by the State and University. Petitioners rest their case on these supplementary counter affidavits. University in its second supplementary counter affidavit has now unwittingly annexed the detail circulars of the State Government, which is not denied by the State, which are generally for all Universities in the State of Bihar. They are in relation to fixing/re-fixing of pay scale of employees of the University. These are of the year 1981, 2004 as well as 2010. With reference to the said Annexures, which are Annexures-D, E & E/1, all issued by the State Government in the department of Human Resources Development itself which is the parent controlling department of the University. In all these Annexures, it is found that in the University office/Vice-Chancellor office there exist a post of Administrative Officer, though it is mentioned that it would be a dying post, which has not yet died, even in 2010 petitioner no.1 held this - 4 - very position on this very post. A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is stated that petitioner no.1 was appointed as Administrative officer on regular pay scale in 1992. In 1996 or thereabout he was reverted as a daily wager and in his place another person was appointed as Administrative Officer and petitioner no.1 was ultimately terminated in 1998. That person continues as Administrative Officer even today in the University. When we come to petitioner no.2, again a reference to the circular as appended by the University itself, it is clear that the said post of Supervisor Sales and Publication is clearly shown in the circulars of the State Government fixing its pay-scale and revise pay- scale. Then we come to the petitioner no.3. Research Assistant is again shown in these circulars. The only thing that is mentioned there is that it is a dying post. Having considered the matter, in my view, a perusal of these circulars, as issued by the State Government in the year 1981, 2004 and repeated in 2010, clearly show the existence of these posts vis-à-vis in all Universities of Bihar. If that be so then it cannot be said that these posts were not available and these posts are not sanctioned posts. The pay-scales are mentioned whether they are continuing or dying posts that are mentioned. There is no mention in either the counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit of the State or the University that these posts were not there when petitioners were appointed and were created subsequent to their appointment. - 5 - Their case is of today is that these posts do not exist at all that is clearly belied by their own Annexures. That being the position, I have no option to hold that petitioners were duly appointed on post that were duly available to the University, which posts are still continuing and they would accordingly have to be readjusted in those posts. Their termination being solitary on the ground that the posts on which they had been appointed is not available cannot be sustained. The order of the State Government holding that the posts cannot be sanctioned also consequently cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioners be appropriately reinstated in service. But, so far as consequential benefits are concerned, as the petitioners have not worked since 1998 till date, they would only be entitled to continuity of service for the purposes of retiral benefits and only to 25% of the remuneration for the period aforesaid. The necessary follow up action should be taken by the University and the State within two months from today. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)