IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10582 of 2000 YOGENDRA PRASAD Versus V.C.,RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIV. & ORS For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh. For Respondent No. 6 : M/S Rajendra Pd. Singh, Rajiv Kumar Singh For the University : Mr. Amar Nath Deo. ----------- 9. 26.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the University and for private Respondent no. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been employed with the Respondent-University since 1.12.1987 for maintenance and supply of electrical works in the Boys’ hostel as well as in works and plant unit situated in Bihar Veterinary Campus. On the issue of regularization of casual workers employed in the University, certain directions were issued by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18594 of 1994. Suffice it to say that while directing regular appointments to be made in consonance with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court issued certain directions for filling up 35% of the available vacancy in Class IV from casual employees worked for more than 14 years having requisite qualification and fit for appointment. The balance 65 % of the vacancy was to be filled by open advertisement for which weightage was to be given to those casual employees who could not be absorbed in the quota of aforesaid 35% by grant of certain weightage of marks as provided in the judgment of the aforesaid S.L.P. The petitioner applied for consideration of his case when he came to be considered in 65% quota and was empanelled in 1999 for the post of Talkie - 2 - Operator. Unfortunately before he may be appointed the panel came into question leading to a fresh advertisement challenging which he came to this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that by reason of subsequent developments including certain orders of this Court the solitary post of Talkie Operator has been filled up in the year 2005. He, however, submits that in response to a fresh advertisement for appointment on the post of Electrician vide advertisement no. 5 of 2008, the petitioner has also applied and which matter is pending consideration. Counsel for the University does not dispute the submission that the application of the petitioner amongst others in response to the fresh advertisement is pending consideration. In that view of the matter, the Court considers it proper to dispose of this writ application with directions to the Respondent- University that if it otherwise finds the petitioner fit for appointment in response to the latter advertisement, he shall be given due weightage for his past work experience which the University has been utilizing since 1987 including relaxation in age. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation with directions to the Respondent-University to complete the selection process under advertisement no. 5 of 2008 at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha,J.)