IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15760 of 2006 BANSH ROPAN SINGH, S/O SRI RAMNATH SINGH, R/O , C/O LATE C.K. SINGH, HARIJEE HATA, RAMNA ROAD, ARRAH, P.S.NAWADA, DISTRICT ARRAH. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE EDUCATION COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHR, PATNA. 3.VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARAH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. 4.THE VICE CHANCELLOR, VEER KUNWAR SINGH UNIVERSITY, ARRAH, DISTRICT BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. ………………….RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad singh, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Nawal Kishore, advocate. For the State: Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, Adv, A.C to S.C 6. For the University: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 05/ 18.07.2011 Heard Mr.Rajendra Prasad singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this is an application for issuance of appropriate writ/direction directing the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioners in the scale of pay sanctioned for the post of Demonstrator from the date/dates the petitioners are working on the post of Lab Incharge/Lab Technician and pay arrears and current salary after deductions of the salary which has already been paid to the petitioners along with admissible interest, i.e.Bank rate till the payment of full arrears of 2 salary in the scale of Demonstrator right from the date of working of the petitioner on the post of Lab Incharge/Lab Technician.” Mr. Singh would explain that the petitioner could not have been discriminated in the matter of being redesignated as a Demonstrator, inasmuch as, the University had in its order dated 08.08.2006 (Annexure-12) given similar benefit to all other Laboratory Incharge who were appointed along with the petitioner in the same transaction in H.D Jain College, Ara and whose services were also approved by the University by a common order of Magadh University dated 07.05.1988 (Annexure-2) to the writ application. He has also submitted that the issue with regard to redesignation of Laboratory Incharge on the post of Demonstrator stand settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vs Radha Kant Jha & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4215-16 of 2002 disposed of on 22.07.2002. Earlier when this case was listed on 30.07.2010, the University was directed to file a counter affidavit but no such counter affidavit has been filed by the University. The striking feature of this case seems to be only on the fact that the petitioner got 3 appointed under the order of the Principal with the approval of Vice-chancellor of Magadh University as Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology whereas on his own showing he had no requisite qualification of being a graduate in the subject of Zoology. The petitioner, however, has an explanation that not only his appointment was made as a Demonstrator in the department of Chemistry but by mistake the Magadh University had approved his services as a Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology. The petitioner claims that subsequently when he had passed the M.Sc examination in the subject of Chemistry, he had requested the University to make necessary correction in his order of appointment and consequently the University had transferred him on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Chemistry. Thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there should have been no difficulty in designating the petitioner on the post of Demonstrator in the Department of Chemistry. In the considered opinion of this Court there could be no difficulty in the petitioner’s case of his being considered on the same line 4 for the same decision as was taken for his other counter parts but then it has to be seen whether on the cut off date, the petitioner was holding the qualification for the post of Laboratory Incharge, inasmuch as, if the petitioner’s earlier appointment on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology was allowed to continue for a long spell of time as is clear from his order of approval of service of Magadh University dated 07.05.1988 and the order of transfer dated 10.01.2006 by Veer Kunwar Singh University, the concerned Authority is required to go into the aspect as to in which department the petitioner’s services were utilized as a Laboratory Incharge in between 1988 to 2005. That date being the touchstone on the post of Demonstrator if he had the relevant qualification, and the petitioner could continue for 17 years as Laboratory Incharge in Zoology department if he did not possess the requisite qualification probably he would not become Demonstrator but then if his case as pleaded in the writ application and not controverted that he has never been an applicant for the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology and the Magadh University by mistake had 5 approved his service on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology, he may have to be given same consideration for being redesignated as a Demonstrator in the department of Chemistry. All these aspects are however in the realm of speculation, inasmuch as, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit and the petitioner’s representation at least as contained in Annexure-4 dated 22.10.2005 does not support the story that has been given by him in the writ application, inasmuch as, in that representation the petitioner admits to be working on the post of Laboratory Incharge in the department of Zoology and had only sought his redesignation in the department of Chemistry on account of his acquiring post graduation qualification in the subject of Chemistry. Thus these aspects will have to be looked into seriously by the University and the State Government before notifying the petitioner on the post of Demonstrator. The petitioner has been agitating his grievance for more than last five years before this Court and as such when the matter is being remitted back to the Vice-chancellor of the Veer 6 Kunwar Singh University, Ara to decide these questions of fact, this Court would expect that a decision by a reasoned order under approval of the State Government would be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)