IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1252 of 2005 1. KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY 3. REGISTRAR, KAMESHWAR SINGH DARBHANGA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY ---------------APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL, BHARAT MISHRA SANSKRIT COLLEGE, CHAPRA 4. LAL MUNI WIFE OF LATE DHAN KUBER TIWARI OF VILLAGE BANSDILA, P.O. KOPA BAZAR, POLICE STATION KOPA, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr.K.N.Choubey, Senior Advocate Mr.Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate Mr.Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the State : Mr.Kumar Alok, S.C.XIX Mr.Satyeshwar Prasad, J.C.to S.C.XIX. ----------- 16. 10.12.2008 O R D E R Writ petitioner-respondent Dhan Kuber Tiwari was a Class III employee of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. By order as contained in Memo dated 16.2.2001 his service was terminated. He challenged the order of termination by filing C.W.J.C.No.12786 of 2001 (Dhan Kuber Tiwari versus The State of Bihar & ors.) before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court found the order of termination to be bad, but in the mean while writ petitioner having retired directed that he shall be entitled for wages of the period from which his service was terminated till the date of superannuation. Aggrieved by the same, Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and its Officers have preferred this 2 appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent was initially appointed on 28.8.1979 by the Managing Committee of the Bharat Mishra Sanskrit College, Chapra. The College, later on, was made a constituent unit of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’). By order dated 24.2.1982 his appointment was approved by the Registrar of the University. However, later on his appointment came under cloud and he filed C.W.J.C.No.8732 of 1994 before this Court. This Court by order dated 31.8.1995 directed to take decision in regard to the claim of his appointment bearing in mind the staffing pattern. In the light thereof his case was examined and by order dated 31.8.1998 writ petitioner was absorbed on a vacant post of Typist with effect from 26.6.1994 with further stipulation that monetary benefits shall be given to him with effect from 1.4.1998. Before the scheduled date of retirement of the writ petitioner i.e. 2.2.2002, by order dated 16.2.2001 his service was terminated which he challenged in the writ application giving rise to the impugned order. Mr.K.N.Choubey, appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that though in the light of the observation of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8732 of 1994, the case of the writ petitioner was examined and by order dated 31.8.1998 he was absorbed on the post of Typist, but later on further examination it 3 Narendra/ was found that his appointment was illegal and accordingly his service was terminated. It is common ground that writ petitioner has died and this appeal is being resisted by his widow. Writ petitioner was appointed by the Managing committee as back as on 28.8.1979. His appointment was approved by the Registrar of the University. Thereafter in the light of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.8732 of 1994, by order dated 31.8.1998 of the Vice- Chancellor of the University he was absorbed in service with effect from 26.6.1994. Writ petitioner in normal course was to retire on 2.2.2002 and it is only on 16.2.2001 that the appellants University had terminated the service of the writ petitioner. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the University ought not to have terminated his service after such a distance of time particularly when on two occasions, his service was approved by the Registrar as also the Vice- Chancellor of the University in the light of the order of the Court. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge calling for interference in the appeal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly, but without any order as to costs. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)