IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14416 of 2007 VIJAY PRATAP SINGH s/o Late Ram Dayal Singh r/o vill- Mahoor (Kanhi) P.O. Shauker, P.S. Ramgarh, District- Kaimur. Present Address- Sri Shanker Mahavidhyalay Takiya, Sasaram, Rohtas. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary Ministry of Education, Bihar. 2. The Vice- Chancellor, Vir Kunwar Singh Univesity, Ara. 3. The Registrar Vir Kunwar Singh, University, Ara. ... Respondents. ----------- 2. 10.11.2010 Having heard Mr. S. M. Shabbir Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the University, this Court is fully satisfied that the following prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application “1. That the present writ application is for the issuance of proper writ or direction to the respondent authorities to allow seniorities to the petitioner from date of his first joining after his original appointment as Physical Training Instructor that is, from 3.5.1999 and not from 13.12.05 that is, the date of his subsequent joining on the basis of the order dated 22.7.05 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shashank Kumar Singh, passed in CWJC No. 2180/2000, as intended by the respondent authorities vide order dated 12.12.05.” seems to be wholly misconceived inasmuch as though the petitioner had actually a grievance with regard 2 to an order of the University dated 12.12.2005 but such order dated 12.12.2005 has not been enclosed, nor a prayer has been made to this effect in this writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner however has produced a copy of the order dated 12.12.2005 from which it becomes clear that such an order was passed in compliance of an order of this Court dated 22.7.2005 in the earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 2180/2005, filed by the petitioner and others, wherein this Court in the operative portion of the aforementioned order had given only following direction:- “ As copy of advertisement has been appended which has been made by the competent authority i.e. the University, selection process is not denied, selection of candidates was there, the same being only one post in each Unit i.e. the College in question, if no reservation was required to be done perhaps this Court feels that even otherwise a vested right of a person was required to be taken away, the same could not be done behind his/her back, as admittedly has been accepted to have been done, in view of the instruction received by the counsel for the University. The petitioners were neither noticed nor heard and the order prejudicial to the petitioner have been passed behind their back. This Court has no hesitation in quashing the same. As such, Annexure-5 and CWJC No. 1799/2000, Annexure 6 and 7 (CWJC No. 2483/2000) and Annexure-7 (CWJC No. 2180/2000) respectively are quashed 3 and the petitioners be deemed to be continuing in service in view of previous appointment letters. This would not preclude, the University, if they do wish to proceed against them in accordance with law after providing them an opportunity of hearing.” The officials of the University in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court had passed the order dated 12.12.2005 which reads as follows;- Þohj dqWoj flag fo’ofo|ky;] vkjk dk;kZy; & vkns’k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds eqdnek la[;k lh- MCyw-ts-lh-3017@2000 vthr dqekj flag cuke~ dqykf/kifr o vU;] lh-MCyw-ts-lh-u0 1799@2000 vatw dqekjh cuke jkT; ljdkj lh-MCyw-ts-lh 2483@2000 fnus’k dqekj flag cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; rFkk lh- MCyw-ts-lh- u0 2180@2000 fot; izrki flag cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; ds U;k;kns’k Øe’k% 25-8-2005 ,oa 22-7-2005 ds vkyksd esa uhps fy[ks ih-Vh-vkbZ- dks vius&vius egkfo|ky; esa vLFkk;h :i ls ;ksxnku djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA ;g ;ksxnku ij fuxZrksijkUr egkfo|ky; esa ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls izHkkoh ekuk tk;xkA 1- Jh vthr dqekj flag 2- vatw dqekjh 3- Jh fnus’k dqekj flag 4- Jh fot; izrki flag dqyifr ds vkns’kkuqlkj g0@& dqylfpo ohj dqWoj flag fo0fo0vkjkA Kkikad 2104@05 fnukad 12-12-05Þ From a bare reading of the said order dated 12.12.2005 and the operative portion of the earlier order of this Court dated 22.7.2005, it would be absolutely clear 4 that the joining of the petitioner pursuant to the direction given by this court upon quashing of the earlier order was sought to be accepted by making such joining of the petitioner effective from the date of their joining. Since there was no direction of this Court to accept the joining from a retrospective date, the University and its officials cannot be said to have committed any error in complying the aforesaid earlier order of this Court dated 22.7.2005. Counsel for the petitioner has however contended that when a contempt application was filed by some other persons only on the basis of aforesaid order dated 12.12.2005, they were given certain relief by the University. This Court has not been aware of such subsequent action of the University after filing of contempt application and the consequential order passed by the University. In that view of the matter, this Court would not like to go into the said issue for want of specific pleading. In the considered opinion of this Court, the relief sought in this writ application is confined to seniority of the petitioner based on the date of first joining. The issue of such seniority can only be gone into if there 5 be a gradation list. Admittedly, no such gradation list has been prepared and the issue of seniority of the petitioner has in fact not even been decided by the University by any order much less by order dated 12.12.2005 quoted above in extenso. Learned counsel for the University seems to be correct that in the earlier aforesaid inter parte order of this Court dated 22.7.2005, it had been held that the post of Physical Training Inspector (PTI) in each of the college is a solitary post, and thus the claim of seniority of the petitioner is itself misconceived. In the considered opinion of this Court, the moment the petitioner would accept that there was no combined cadre of PTI for all the colleges of the University, there would be no need to fix the seniority of the petitioner against the solitary post of P.T.I. It thus becomes clear that the petitioner in garb of seniority had actually aimed to get his salary for the period he had remained out of service. The fact that this Court disputes quashing of the earlier order of termination of service of the petitioner and others, had not held entitled them for payment of their salary would by itself stand in his way of claiming such relief in an indirect manner. 6 That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)