IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16996 of 2008 1. Ram Bilash Harijan son of late Bhujangi Mehtar, resident of village + P.O. Agarpur, P.S. Lodipur, District Bhagalpur. 2. Suresh Harijan, son of Sri Gamaku Harijan, resident of Mohalla Shilatar (Gandhi Nagar House), P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur 3. Pawan Harijan son of Sri Suresh Harijan, resident of Mohalla Shilater ) Gandhi Nagar House) P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur 4. Shrawan Harijan son of Uchit Harisan, resident of Mohalla Chauki Niyamatpur (Digruj lane) P.O. Champanagar, P.S. Nathnagar, District Bhagalpur. 5. Manoj Harijan, son of Late Dhaneshwar Mehtar, resident of Mohalla Old P.G. Campur, P.O. - T.N. B. College, P.S. University, District Bhagalpur. 6. Jwala Mehtar, son of Shankar Harijan, resident of village + P.O. Agarpur, P.S. Lodipur, District Bhagalpurm………..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur. 5. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur…………………………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey, Advocate. For the University: Mr. A.K. Keshri, Advocate 2 01.08.2011 Learned counsel for the University submits that after series of litigations in this Court and under orders of the Chancellor, list of 365 Class III and Class IV employees working in the University on daily wages was prepared by the University 2 for their regularisation against vacant sanctioned posts in the University and was approved by the State Government vide Letter No.46/96-425 dated 3.4.2007 and they have been regularized by the University consequent upon approval by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although petitioners who are of S.C. category and were much senior to many of the incumbents of the category who have been regularized on the basis of such approval by the State Government, for no valid and cogent reasons, cases of the petitioners have been ignored for inclusion of their names in the list of Class III and Class IV employees of S.C. category working in the University sent to the State Government for its approval. He submits that as per the Chancellor’s order dated 03.12.2005 (Annexure-1) the University was required to prepare list strictly as per seniority and reservation roster, which the University has not done and has not included the names of the petitioners in the category as per their seniority. 3 This is a question of fact which requires to be examined by the University authorities and to take corrective measures if petitioners’ names were left out by mistake. Therefore, it will be advisable for the petitioners to file individual representations before the Vice chancellor of the University pointing out to him the history of their appointment and service under the University, in whatever capacity it may be, and claiming that the persons appointed along with them or subsequent to them have been regularized on the basis of approval of the State Government overlooking their claims. In case such representations are filed by the petitioners within one month from today, the respondent Vice Chancellor shall examine the records in respect of the services of the petitioners vis-a-vis of those claimed to be junior to them in service. If after enquiry, respondent Vice Chancellor finds that the claims of the petitioners are correct and their cases were ignored or overlooked by the University for 4 no cogent reasons, he shall pass orders and recommend their names to the State Government, in terms of the Chancellor orders, for approval, within three months of filing of the representations and after obtaining approval of the State Government, he shall pass orders for regularisation of the petitioners against next available sanctioned vacant posts. For the purpose of enquiry, if necessary, respondent Vice Chancellor may give personal hearing to the petitioners also. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)