IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6795 of 2002 BADIUR RAHMAN, son of late Mainul Haque, resident of village Kumharauli, P.O. Kumhrauli, P.S. Kamtaul, District Darbhanga, at present Gwala, Cattle Farm, Pusa, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, Bihar through its Registrar, having his Headquarter at Pusa, District Samastipur 2. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District Samastipur 3. The Director of Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, P.O. Pusa, District Samastipur 4. The Dean, Faculty of Animal and Husbandry Sciences, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna and Chairman of Evaluation Committee of Live Stock Assistant of Cattle Farm, Pusa, District Samastipur 5. Officer Incharge, Animal Production Reseach Institute (A.P.R.I.), Pusa, and Superintendent Cattle Farm, Pusa, District Samastipur 6. Suresh Baitha, son of not known to the petitioner, Live Stock Assistant, A.P.R.I., Cattle Farm, Pusa, District Samastipur 7. Ram Punit Ram, son of not known to the petitioner, Live Stock Assistant, A.P.R.I., Cattle Farm Pusa, District Samastipur … Respondents ----------- 5. 19.7.2010 Heard Mr. Anand Kumar OJha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. A.K.Upadhya, counsel for Rajendra Agricultural University. Though the prayer in this writ application by the petitioner was made to the following effect: “(i) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to 2 consider the case of the petitioner to promote him to the post of Super Selection Grade Gwala in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1.4.1990 with all its consequential benefits and also consider the case for cadre promotion to the post of Live Stock Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1540 with effect from the date his juniors namely Suresh Baitha, respondent no.6 and Ram Punit Ram, respondent no.7 have been promoted. (ii) Issuance of declaration that non-consideration of the case of petitioner for promotion despite being senior most Gwala and consideration of cases of persons junior is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction.” counsel for the petitioner at the outset of hearing of the case on 5.7.2002 had confined his prayer only for grant of cadre promotion. In that view of the matter, the prayer No. (ii) would be deemed to have been not pressed by the petitioner. Mr. Ojha as with regard to solitary relief left regarding consideration of the case of promotion of the petitioner would refer to the two counter affidavits filed by 3 the University in this case and would submit that while in the first counter affidavit the stand of the University was that the case of the petitioner for promotion was under consideration, in the second counter affidavit the University has come out with a plea that upon such consideration the petitioner was not found entitled/ eligible for such promotion and therefore, he was not given such promotion. He would also refer to the stand of the University that on account of non-grant of promotion the petitioner was compensated by way of grant of two A.C.Ps. as has been stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the second counter affidavit. Mr. Ojha also submits that the petitioner has already retired from the service and therefore, he would be satisfied if he is given the order rejecting his claim for promotion and also statement of account as with regard to fixation of his salary upon grant of two A.C.Ps. Dr. Upadhya appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the aforementioned limited submission of Mr. 4 Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and therefore, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the University to supply him the reasoned order which was passed during the pendency of this writ application rejecting the case of promotion of the petitioner as also furnish him with the statement of accounts/ pay fixation statement of the petitioner upon grant of two A.C.Ps. as claimed in the counter affidavit. This exercise, however, must be completed by the University within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. After this portion of the order was passed Mr. Ojha sought leave of this Court to assail the order passed by the University rejecting grant of promotion of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court such an order having been passed during the pendency of this writ application by itself would be again a new cause of action and therefore, amenable to any challenge in a fresh proceedings as permissible in law. 5 Surendra/ With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)