IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13116 of 2009 1. SACHIDA NAND PRASAD S/O LATE BALKRISHNA RAM WORKING AS ASSISTANT IN MAHIL COLLEGE DALMIANAGAR, P.S.- DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) Versus 1. VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. VICE- CHANCELLOR VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH 3. REGISTRAR VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH 4. PRINCIPAL MAHILA COLLEGE, DALMIA NAGAR, P.S.- DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTT.- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 5. AKHILESH PANDEY S/O NOT KNOWN ASSISTANT, MAHILA COLLEGE, DALMIANAGAR, P.S.- DEHRI-ON-SONE, DISTT.- ROHTAS(SASARAM) ----------- 2. 04.01.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner is aggrieved on account of issuance of an order contained in Memo No. 572/Estab/09 dated 04.07.2009 by the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuar Singh University whereby Akhilesh Pandey (respondent No. 5) has been absorbed on the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-cashier w.e.f. 06.08.1995 instead of the petitioner. Further prayer is for quashing of the impugned order and also for a direction to the respondents to absorb him on the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Cashier which was earlier held by him continuously for over 23 years. In support of his claim and seniority for absorption on the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-Cashier, petitioner has annexed several letters issued by the university- authorities. Since the period when Mahila College, Dalmianagar was earlier a constituent unit of Magadh University and now after bifurcation of Magadh university and establishment of Veer Kuar Singh University, a constituent unit of Veer Kuar Singh University. In support of his contention, the petitioner has annexed the salary 2 fixation documents and several documents to show that he was appointed 5 years earlier to respondent No. 5. His date of appointment is in the year, 1980 and so far respondent No. 5 is concerned, he was appointed in the year, 1985. In all annexed documents, the petitioner has been shown holding the post of Accounts Clerk-cum-cashier, as such, there was no reason for not considering case of the petitioner for absorption on the post and absorbing respondent No. 5 against that post. It has been submitted by petitioner’s counsel that on account of the impugned order, the petitioner will also suffer financial loss. As stated in the writ application, the petitioner has already represented his case before the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuar Singh University for the similar relief and that is still pending for under consideration. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of giving direction to the Vice Chancellor, Veer Kuar Singh University to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner giving liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 to place their cases, the Vice Chancellor shall dispose of the representation, by a reasoned order, preferably within four weeks, from the date of filing of representation along with the order of this court. In case claim of the petitioner is found to be just and proper, he should be given benefit of absorption with effect from the same date from which the order contained in Annexure-17 was issued and the respondent No. 5 was absorbed as Accounts Clerk. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)