IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3745 of 2000 BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With MJC No.3116 of 2000 RAMESH CHANDRA KUMAR & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Chakrapani Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anjani Kr. Sharan (S.C.No.20) For the University: Mr. J.S. Barnwal, Advocate 24 15.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. By order complained of, this Court has disposed of two writ applications. This Court noticed that through letter dated 22.11.1999 the University had recommended class III and Class IV posts of Nalanda College, Biharsharif to the Government for sanction. The Court considered submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that posts have to be deemed sanctioned in view of the Full Bench Division of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh & ors. Versus State of Bihar & others. Therefore, this Court directed the Secretary, Higher Education to take that 2 recommendation into account and issue orders for prior sanction of the posts. Upon such sanction, the University was directed to identify the persons who were working against the deemed sanctioned posts and release the salary. From the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, it appears that, in compliance to the said orders of this Court, and in reference to the said communication of the State Government, University through letter dated 19.12.2001, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-A to the show cause, sanctioned 25 posts of non-teaching staff in the College. Thereafter, 25 employees were identified by the University as working on the sanctioned posts and they were paid arrears as well as current salary. Petitioners are not amongst them. In fact, they are aggrieved by the said communication of the State Government dated 19.12.2001 by which only 25 posts of non-teaching staff were sanctioned in compliance to the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that by the said letter dated 3 22.11.1999, the University had recommended for sanction of 57 non-teaching posts in the college and, as against the same, Government had sanctioned only 25 posts. He points out that it is admitted in the show cause that the University has recommended for sanction of remaining non-teaching posts to the Government as late as in 2006 but the University has not received any response from the State Government in this regard. Learned counsel for the University points out that some of the non-teaching employees of the College had challenged the said letter of the Government dated 19.12.2001 in this Court through CWJC No. 2280 OF 2002. This Court, by a detailed order after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ application against which petitioners moved in L.P.A. bearing L.P.A. 827 of 2000 which stood dismissed for default vide order dated 01.05.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petitioners were not the petitioners in the said writ application. Therefore, the order passed in the said writ application will not be 4 applicable in their cases. Be that as it may, in view of the directions passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-1 with these M.J.C applications the order of this Court stands complied with by the opposite parties. This is another question that the State Government has been requested to consider for sanction of more non-teaching posts in the College, as recommended by the University which they have not done. Since the order of this Court stands complied with, this Court does not find any merit in these contempt applications. The same are dismissed. Petitioners, if aggrieved by the said sanction order, will be at liberty to challenge the same in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)