IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10485 of 2005 SANJAY KUMAR SAH Versus THE B.N.MANDAL UNIVERSITY & ORS ----------- 6/ 18/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University and learned counsel for private respondent No.5. The issue in this writ application relates to the regularization of the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendations of the Agrawal Commission appointed by the Supreme Court. On the issue for regularization to employees of the 4th phase colleges, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an accounts clerk by the erstwhile K.B.Jha College, Katihar when the college came to be taken over. The writ application for regularization was allowed by this Court when before the Apex Court the matter was referred to the Agrawal Commission. The assertion of the petitioner in paragraph-26 of the writ application that the University before the Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner was appointed and is functioning as an accounts clerk has not been denied by the University in its counter affidavit at paragraph-24. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the statement furnished by the University before the Agrawal Commission the petitioner was wrongly shown as a store keeper leading to the recommendation by the Commission for regularization as such. This aspect is denied by the University which states that it is bound by the recommendations of the Commission, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. 2 The Supreme Court, in its order dated 12.10.2004 in Civil Appeal No.6098/97 noticed that several objections have been filed with regard to the recommendations of the Commission. This Court considers it proper to quote the relevant extract of the paragraph in that regard from the judgement of the Supreme Court “In some of the written objections, certain mistakes of names and descriptions of employees in the Report of the Commission have been pointed out. Such mistakes in the Report of the Commission may be brought by the affected employees to the notice of the universities concerned. It would be open to the universities, for the above limited purpose to undertake enquiry and verification of the records to rectify and rely upon the report of the Commission with the necessary corrections only with regard to the names and descriptions of the employees.” In pursuance thereof the University invited objections on 1.12.2004 when the petitioner submitted his detailed objections in writing on 9.12.2004. Without consideration of his objections for non-regularization on the accounts clerk which, according to the petitioner, was a mis-description to ascribe the status of storekeeper to him, the respondent University has proceeded to simpliciter to regularize him as storekeeper. To this Court, the objection of the University that it was bound by the recommendations of the Commission, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, does not appear to be correct. The Supreme Court had itself noticed the magnitude of the exercise and the possibilities of bona fide errors, more particularly with regard to the mis-description of the employees or other names and had therefore granted limited 3 powers to the Universities to interfere with the recommendations to the extent as quoted above. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the University was required to consider the objection of the petitioner with regard to his non-regularization on the post of accounts clerk and that consideration is not inhibited in any manner either by the recommendation of the Commission, as affirmed by the Supreme Court and on the contrary warrants such consideration in accordance with law as per the order of the Supreme Court itself. The writ application is, therefore, disposed off with direction to the respondent University to consider the objections of the petitioner dated 9.12.2004 for his regularization on the post of accounts clerk in accordance with law and the representation of the University itself before the Supreme Court, after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )