CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1811 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA Son of Late Gauri Shankar Sharma resident of University Campus, P.S. Kazi Mahammadpur, Town and District Muzaffarpur, presently Lecturer in Botany University Department of Botany, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna. 3. The B.R.A. Bihar University, through its Registrar, University Campus, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. .. .. .. Respondents. For The Petitioner : Mr. H.K.THAKUR For The Respondent : (SC7) For the State : Mr. Anil Kr. Verma, J.C. to S.C.-3 For B.R.A. University : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. A rejoinder has been filed to supplementary counter affidavit which surprisingly is not on record. Before depositing this file in the record room, the office is directed to attach the rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 23.9.2008 after receipt of this order. 2. The petitioner has filed this 2 writ application for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 14.10.1995 passed by the Chancellor as contained in annexure-25 in compliance of the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 7484 of 1991. 3. The petitioner was working in B.R.A. Bihar Unviersity (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) on the post of a Demonstrator. The petitioner’s services were terminated and subsequently regularised by annexure-4 along with 57 other persons. The said order of regularisation dated 12th October, 1982 indicates that the petitioner would be treated to be in service from the date of his appointment i.e. 19.1.1973 treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that he should be promoted to the post of Lecturer from 1.1.1976 or 30.12.1976. The petitioner has claimed promotion from 1976 on two grounds. The first ground is that there were vacancies of Lecturer against the said post in the Botany Department and 3 despite the vacancies the case of the petitioner was not considered. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that one Malti Singh working as a Demonstrator in the Home Science Department was granted promotion although the concurrence for her appointment as a Demonstrator was made at a later date. 5. The order of the Chancellor has examined all aspects of the matter and referred to statutes with respect to promotion of Demonstrator to the post of Lecturer while passing the order. The grounds taken in the order of the Chancellor for not granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer from 1976 is that the petitioner was not working on the post between 22.12.1972 to 30.12.1976. This fact is supported by annexure-4 whereby, the petitioner’s services were regularised after recommendation of the University Selection Committee by the syndicate of the University treating the absence from duties consequent upon the retrenchment would be treated as extraordinary leave. Moreover, I find that 4 all those persons who were regularised along with the petitioner were also not granted benefit of being promoted to the post of a Lecturer during the period 22.12.1972 to 30.12.1976. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, persons similarly situated to him have not been meted out a different treatment to the petitioner inasmuch the petitioner does not claim that any of them were given the benefit of promotion to the post of Lecturer during the period which was treated to be under extraordinary leave. 6. As far as the case of Malti Singh is concerned, the petitioner has brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit that Malti Singh was granted promotion to the post of Lecturer by the order of the Chancellor passed on 14.9.1995 w.e.f. 14.11.1980. The counsel for the petitioner submits that she was granted promotion although order of concurrence from the University Selection Committee was much later. Malti Singh works in the Home Science Department and the facts with 5 respect to her appointment etc. are not on record, therefore, this Court cannot come to a finding that the case of Malti Singh was similar as the case of the petitioner. However, to this Court it appears obvious that Malti Singh was not similarly situated to the petitioner as she is not amongst those Demonstrators who were regularized along with this petitioner and, therefore, the question of discrimination does not arise in this case. 7. The second contention of the petitioner is that although there were vacancies in 1976, the case of the petitioner was not considered against those vacancies. 8. From Paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it would be clear that the vacancy of Lecturer in the Department of Botany occurring between 22.12.1972 to 30.12.1976 was filled up amongst the eligible Demonstrator as per roaster reservation. Obviously, the case of the petitioner could not have been considered at that time, as he was not working in the 6 University. 9. The petitioner has tried to show that some vacancies were available but those relate to the period 1978 and as such those vacancies cannot form the basis for claiming promotion as far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner has been granted time bound promotion from 14.11.1980. 10. This Court in the facts stated aforesaid finds that there is no illegality in the reasoning given by the Chancellor of the University in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The writ application is thus dismissed. Patna High Court, November, 26, 2008 N.A.F.R./Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)