IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13324 of 2000 DR. ARVIND KUMAR UPADHYA, S/O LATE B.N. UPADHYA, R/O D-1, POLICE COLONY, P.S.- GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA. 4. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR COLLEGE SERVICE COMMISSION, PATNA. 5. PRINCIPAL OF R.S.S.Y COLLEGE, ANISHABAD, PATNA. 6. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR THROUGH O.S.D. (JUDICIAL). ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Awadesh Kumar Mishra, Vijay Kumar, B.S.Mishra and Anand Kumar Mishra, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Adv. ------------- 8 17.03.2010 Petitioner claims that pursuant to the resolution of the Governing Body dated 7.9.1979 he was appointed on the first post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy in the College. He submits that thereafter he has continued. However, from his own document, Annexure-6, it appears that the first post of Philosophy in the College was sanctioned by the Government with effect from 22.07.1985. Annexure-12 of the writ application also shows that the College Service Commission had advertised the post for regular appointment and 2 after holding the interview had recommended the name of one Satyendra Kumar for regular appointment against the first post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy in the College. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Satyendra Kumar did not join and, therefore, the petitioner has continued in the College. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has legitimate claim for consideration of his case for regularization. Learned counsel for the respondents has seriously disputed this stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that since admittedly the sanctioned post of Lecturer was not available prior to 22.07.1985 the Governing Body had no authority to make any appointment in the College. He also submits that once the post was advertised and recommendation was made by the Commission for regular appointment against the post, even if the recommendi did not join, the College had no alternative than to requisition further name from the Commission for regular appointment against the post. It is not open to the College to consider the case of any other incumbent for absorption as regular Lecturer in the College. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Statute dated 29.1.1986 which according to him provides for regularization of incumbents appointed in the Colleges prior to 28.2.1982. However, this Court finds that the petitioner has not yet approached the University for regularization and his case has not been considered by a competent authority and no specific orders have been passed either way. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion in respect of the claim of the petitioner, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University for the purpose within one month. In case such a representation is filed, the Vice-Chancellor shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and shall pass speaking order either way preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)