IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6575 of 2008 Yadunandan Prasad Yadav, son of Binchoo Prasad Yadav, resident of village Parwaha, P.O. Kaurhiharh, P.S. Gamharia, District- Madhepura. ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The Vice Chancellor, B.N.Mandal University, Madhepura 2.The Registrar, B.N.Mandal University, Madhepura 3.The Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, at New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 4.The Principal, B.N.Mandal Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Madhepura 5.Sachindra Prasad Yadav, son of Matar Yadav, resident of village Sohugarh, Tola Bhagwanpur, P.S. + District- Madhepura. ………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 06/09/2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondent University to absorb him on the post of IVth Grade Non-Teaching Staff (Peon) in the College with consequential benefits on the ground that he has been working in the College since 1981. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although petitioner was senior but in the subsequent list produced by the University before the Justice Agrawal Commission, his name was mentioned at the bottom of the list showing him junior to the persons who were appointed later on. He submits that in fact 23 posts were available, out of which only 22 persons have been absorbed on the recommendation of Justice Agrawal Commission and one post is still 2 vacant. On the earlier date, this Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner to produce relevant portions of Justice Agrawal Commission Report dealing with recognition of the Institution. The same has been produced along the supplementary affidavit as Annexure- 9. After going through the Report, this Court finds that the Commission has recommended specific employees of Class III and IV by name, as contained in Annexure-IV-B of the Report, for consideration of their absorption. The list does not contain the name of the petitioner. Hence, even if contention of learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct, this Court is handicapped in adding any name to the list recommended by Justice Agrawal Commission and approved by the Supreme Court. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may move the Apex Court for necessary correction/ modification in the list. With this observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)