IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5116 of 2003 MANI KANT PATHAK, son of late Bhujawan Pathak, resident of village Madhopatti, P.S. Kamtol, District Darbhanga … Petitioner Versus 1. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, though its Vice Chancellor 2. The Principal, Inter Sanskrit College, Pinadaruch, Darbhanga 3. The Secretary, Governing Body, Inter Sanskrit College, Pinadaruch, Darbhanga 4. The State of Bihar 5. Bihar College Service Commission, through its Secretary, Boring Canal Road, Patna-1 … Respondents ----------- 7. 3.9.2010 Having heard counsel for the parties in respect of the prayer of the petitioner made in this writ application: “By this writ application, the petitioner craves indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondents authorities concerned to appoint the petitioner on regular basis on the post of Lecturer in Literature (Sanskrit) in Inter Sanskrit College, Pinadaruch, Darbhanga and also to pay the salary regularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is working regularly and was paid his salary till December, 2002 and thereafter the petitioner is being denied of the same.” this Court on 12.8.2010 had passed the following detailed order: 2 “In this case there is a very piquant situation. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer on temporary basis in the Inter Sanskrit College, Pindaruch, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as the College) affiliated to Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. On a requisition by the Governing Body of the College, the College Service Commission having advertised the post, held selection had recommended the petitioner as a first candidate on the post of Lecturer in Sahityacharya, but the said recommendation of the Commission was not acted upon and the petitioner continued to work on his post of lecturer in the College on temporary basis even after recommendation of the College Service Commission. Now a stand is being taken on behalf of the Governing body of the College that since the University has struck off the name of the petitioner from the budget on account of the fact that appointment has not been made by the Governing body of the College in terms of the recommendation of the College Service Commission and the approval accorded by the University, a proposal has been submitted by the Principal of the 3 College to remove the petitioner from service which is pending consideration of the University. The University as usual has not filed any counter affidavit. There would be in fact few cases of this nature of Kameshwasr Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University where a person has been sought to be appointed in a regular manner, inasmuch as, there is recommendation of College Service Commission in his favour and yet he is being subjected to all sort of harassment. In that view of the matter, this Court would adjourn this matter for a period of three weeks, but on the next date the University must come out with the solution with regard to the case of petitioner. In the event this Court would find that there is any evasive attitude on the part of the Vice Chancellor and/or Registrar of the University, it would fix liability on the person who has been responsible for depriving the petitioner, despite having fulfilled all the criteria to go unpaid while continuing to work in the College. Put up this case after three weeks at the top of the list.” 4 Counsel for the University has submitted that the University in the meantime in the light of earlier order of this Court dated 12.8.2010 has made necessary communication with the Governing Body of the College as with regard to appointment of the petitioner in terms of recommendation of the College Service Commission. He has, however, also informed this Court that during the pendency of this writ application the payment of salary as claimed by the petitioner in this writ application has been made subject matter of an enquiry before the Chancellor in terms of his orders dated 6.3.2010 purportedly under section 9(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act and that the petitioner has in fact challenged the said order dated 6.3.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 7699/2010. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner owed a duty to inform this Court by filing a supplementary affidavit brining the said subsequent events on record because till the said order dated 6.3.2010 is in force a direction for payment of his salary 5 could only be issued only after quashing the same. As noted above, for that purpose the petitioner’s aforementioned writ application C.W.J.C.No. 7699 of 2010 is still pending. In that view of the matter, this application is disposed of with an observation that disposal of this case without giving the relief prayed herein will not prejudice the petitioner in getting his relief in C.W.J.C.No. 7699/2010 where also the petitioner in fact has made a similar prayer for payment of his salary pursuant to his appointment in the College. It is however made clear that a decision of the Governing Body on the said communication of the University in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.8.2010 should be taken without being influenced by disposal of this writ application which as noted above has been necessitated only on account of the order of the Chancellor holding enquiry in the matter of payment of salary of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of. 6 Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Gyanand Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University for its communication to the office of Chancellor as also to the Governing Body of the College. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/