IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6017 of 2007 AMAR KANT SINGH, SON OF PARMATAMA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HILSA, P.S. HILSA, DISTRICT-NALANDA AT PRESENT POSTED AS DEMONSTRATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, S.U. COLLEGE, HILSA, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ……….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR, BODH GAYA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT- BOTH GAYA. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT-BODH GAYA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, P.S. BODH GAYA, DISTRICT-BODH GAYA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL S.U. COLLEGE, HILSA, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 27.09.2010 Having heard Mr. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for Magadh University in respect of the following relief; “That in this writ application the challenge is to the office order contained in Memo No. 453/G1C dated 10.4.2007 issued under the order of Vice- Chancellor of the University under the signature of its Registrar wherein and whereunder by making modification in the order contained in letter No. 266/G-1 “C” dated 7.2.2007 the designation of the petitioner as Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry and his appointment/promotion to the said post in the Department of Chemistry as he held the qualification equivalent that of Demonstrator with effect from 5.11.1981 was rescinded and the Principal of the College was asked to send the certificate copy of the all the relevant records with his recommendation so that further necessary 2 action can be taken in the matter without giving any prior notice to the petitioner, accordingly the petitioner prays for quashing of the same be issuance of the writ in the nature of „Certiorari‟ and further prays for issuance of writ in the nature of “Mandamus‟ or any other appropriate direction commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order and/or for relief to the petitioner for which he is found entitled to in law.” this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in fact has not finally determined the issue as is sought to be either apprehended or canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It is apparent from the impugned order that the earlier decision of petitioner‟s absorption or his being redesginated as demonstrator in the department of Chemistry of Sri Chand Udasin Mahavidyalay, Hilsa (Nalanda) has been sought to be re-opened by seeking certain explanation/report from the Principal of the College. It is true that such order has the trapping and tenor of rescinding the earlier decision contained in the order dated 7.2.2007 in favour of this petitioner but then it cannot be said that the University has finally decided for not restoring the same date as shown in the earlier order as contained in Annexure-5 even if the College Principle would submit his report disclosing the facts in justification 3 of the earlier date. That being so, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order as contained in annexure-7 is only an interim arrangement and an interim order and that too only with regard to redesignation of the petitioner on the post of demonstrator in the College without affecting his continuation or drawing salary in the College. Such exercise in fact has to be done only because of the policy decision of the Government and the University to redesignate the post of Laboratory Incharge as Demonstrator and therefore the change of cosmetic service conditions only by way of redesignation without adversely affecting the salary and emoluments of the petitioner truly and strictly speaking does not substantially prejudice the petitioner for the moment but his hunch and apprehension that any order passed would be detrimental by changing the date of his appointment of 5.11.1981 to a date on or after 4.1.1986 on which date one Jaiprakash Narayan Lal was appointed/promoted on the post of Laboratory Incharge would seriously prejudice him, has some justification. In this context, it has to be however noted that Jaiprakash Narayan Lal has not been made party in 4 this writ application and therefore this Court would not like to say anything which may affect his right but nonetheless it is clear from the materials on record including the facts stated in the counter affidavit that Jaiprakash Narayan Lal while working on lower post of Store Keeper had assailed the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Incharge made on 30.9.1981 vide annexure-1 and the operation of the said order on being assailed by Jaiprakash Narayan Lal in CWJC No. 3895 of 1981 was stayed by an order dated 4.11.1981 and accordingly the Principal of the College by his order dated 12.11.1981 had withdrawn his order dated 5.11.1981 allowing the joining of the petitioner. Obviously, when this court had passed an order of stay on 4.11.1981 the petitioner‟s joining after that date could not have been accepted and to that extent, the order of the Principal of the College dated 12.11.1981 having not been challenged by the petitioner in that period, the issue must be deemed to be closed. The only question which now has to be gone into will be as with regard to the effect of withdrawal of the aforesaid stay order of this Court on account of 5 disposal of the said writ application of Jai Prakash Narayan Lal by way of withdrawal of CWJC No. 3895 of 1981 (Annexure-2). It has to be also kept in mind that the withdrawal of the writ application filed by Jaiprakash Narayan Lal was actuated on account of his being appointed or promoted as Laboratory Incharge on 4.1.1986 but then the question would arise that so far inter se seniority of the petitioner viz a viz Jaiprakash Narayan Lal is concerned, Jaiprakash Narayan Lal having assailed the appointment of the petitioner and subsequently withdrawing it, will be deemed to have given up his claim of earlier appointment as against the appointment of the petitioner. It is however not in doubt that after withdrawal of the writ application by Jaiprakash Narayan Lal, the petitioner was reappointed on 2.11.1987 and the joining of the petitioner was thereafter accepted on 3.11.1987. Thus, if Jaiprakash Narayan Lal had got appointed on 4.1.1986 by keeping the petitioner on tenter hooks by virtue of the said stay order of this Court which was complied by the principal of the College by withdrawing the joining report of the petitioner, the University will be definitely obliged to take into 6 consideration that whatever be the date of reappointment or rejoining of the petitioner, the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Jaiprakash Narayan Lal will have to be decided in the light of previous history as noted above. As Jaiprakash Narayan Lal is not a party before this Court and therefore this Court would not like to say anything specially when the University has not finally decided the matter and has only made its further enquiry from the Principal of the College, this Court would however direct the Registrar of the University to issue notice both to the petitioner as also Jaiprakash Narayan Lal and pass an order fixing the date of redesignation of the petitioner on the post of demonstrator as also deciding the inter se seniority strictly in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that whatever has been noted above by this Court is based only in the light of the submission made before this Court and therefore nothing said in this order will come in the way of the University while deciding the date of redesignation of the petitioner on the post of demonstrator or fixing the inter se 7 seniority of the petitioner vis a vis Jai Prakash Narayan Lal strictly in accordance with law . With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)