IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.351 of 2010 1. DR. SURESH PRASAD YADAV S/O SRI SINGHESHWARI PRASAD YADAV R/O MOHALLA- LALA PATTI, P.O.- GAHUMANI, VIA AND P.S.- SINGHESHWAR, DISTT.- MADHEPURA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PROFESSOR COLONY, WARD NO. 3/4 (NEW), SHREE NIWAS, P.O. AND P.S.- MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA VERSUS 1. B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA 3. THE REGISTRAR-CUM-ELECTION OFFICER B.N. MANDAL UNIVERSITY, MADHEPURA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA WITH CWJC No.390 of 2010 1. AJAY KUMAR S/O LATE PUNYADEO PRASAD YADAV R/O WARD NO.-15, P.S.- MADHEPURA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BHUPENDRA NARAIN MANDAL UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR BHUPENDRA NARAIN MANDAL UNIVERSITY, LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA 5. THE REGISTRAR CUM RETURNING OFFICER BHUPENDRA NARAIN MANDAL UNIVERSITY, LALOO NAGAR, MADHEPURA ----------- (In C.W.J.C. No.351/2010) For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad Mr. Binod Kr. Sinha Mr. Manoj Kumar. (In C.W.J.C. No.390/2010) Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha. Mr. Bidhan Chandra Jha. For the Respondents : Mr. H.P. Singh ( In both cases) ---------- 03 14.01.2010 The petitioner in the first writ application joined the services of the B.N. Mandal University as a Laboratory Assistant. He was thereafter designated as a Demonstrator. - 2 - Thereafter, pursuant to the decision of the Government, he was eligible to be made a Lecturer and promoted as such by University notification dated 02.10.1992 with effect from 15.09.1987. The petitioner has been working on the post of Lecturer in the College and recognized as such by the University. He submits that he is accordingly a teacher and entitled to be included in the teachers’ electoral roll as prepared by the University for election of members to the Senate of the University. He has further asserted that in the year 2005 voter list of teachers he was there in serial no.734, but when the present voter list was prepared his name was not included therein, without there being an explanation. The matter was earlier heard and adjourned for learned counsel for the University to take instruction. Learned counsel for the University states on instruction that recently in the month of December-2008 State Government issued a circular whereby it directed that persons, who are working as lecturers, having been initially recruited as Laboratory Assistant, would not be treated as teachers and it is because of this reason that their names got to be excluded. Regrettably, in the same breath learned counsel states that the circular of the State Government has since been stayed by this Court in another writ application. Accepting what has been stated by the learned - 3 - counsel for the University, it is now apparent that the circular of the Government treating petitioner and his like not to be teachers having been stayed by this Court. The position as obtaining earlier is restored and till such time the stay operates petitioner has to be treated as teachers. Thus, on these very basic facts itself, exclusion of the name of the petitioner and his like from the voters list is, prima facie, without sanction of law. The direction that has to follow in such matters is that the election, which is to be held on a wrongly prepared voter list, cannot be conducted, till the voter list is made in accordance with the findings of this Court as above. Now, coming to the second writ application, which as noticed earlier is by the petitioner, who is a Senior Professor of a 4th phase constituent college and has been filed this writ application in representative capacity as President of Samanjit Shikshak Avam Shikshekettar Karamchari Sangh of B.N. Mandal University. It was alleged that all Lecturers of 4th phase constituent colleges, whose services have been recognized as regular by the Apex Court, pursuant to the report of the Justice Agarwal Committee submitted to it and accepted by the Court, they have been left out from the voter list. This case was also adjourned. Learned counsel for the University though admits that after draft publication of voter list an objection was filed - 4 - making specific grievance in this regard, but the grievance having not been found correct was not acted upon. No order was passed on the representations. He maintains that all Lecturers, whose services were recognized and regularized, are in the list. He asserts that the services of the petitioner has neither been accepted nor regularized but in the short time available he could not bring anything on record to substantiate the same. To the contrary, specific averments have been made in the writ application that the services of the petitioner had been regularized and accepted as such by the Apex Court and the University as well. In spite of objection without any order, without any enquiry, he and like persons has been kept out of the voter list. The fact remains that University gave opportunity for making objections to the draft voter list. Objections were filed but as virtually admitted that they were all consigned without formal order even been passed that defeat the whole purpose. Be that as it may, as in the first writ application, I have already held that the voter list being revised before a meaningful election can be conducted. The University would be obliged to consider the case of the petitioner and his like and wherever representations are filed against wrongful inclusion or wrongful exclusion would be obliged to pass order one way or the other before the final voter list are published. An election conducted in such a slip-shod method - 5 - is meaningless and, as such, cannot be permitted to be conducted. I, accordingly, direct that on the two counts, as noticed in these two writ applications, the voter list to be revised and, as such, the election as scheduled, cannot be carried out, till such revision is done after due notice to the parties. Accordingly, both the writ applications are disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)