Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 411 and 442 Of 2003 ---------- Against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in CWJC Nos. 11837 & 11697 of 2002 respectively. --------- In L.P.A. No. 411 of 2003 1. Chandrika Prasad Keshri, son of Late Yadav Lal Bihari, resident of Village Mahuawa, P.S. Pipra, District East Champaran 2. Sheoji Prasad, son of Late Bigu Bhagat, resident of Village Majhar, P.S. Pakridayal, District East Champaran ……….. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources (Development) Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Bihar New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources (Development) Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 5. Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, through its Vice Chancellor 6. The Principal, Shiv Deni Ram Ayodhya Prasad College, Bara Chakia, District- East Champaran ………..Respondents/Respondents W i t h In L.P.A. No. 442 of 2003 1. Surendra Prasad Sah, son of Shri Ramanand Sah, resident of Village Marhaura, (Purani Bazar), P.S. Marhaura, District Saran at Chapra 2. Bipin Chandra Rai, son of Shri Nand Lal Rai, resident of Village Ratanpur, P.S. Pipra Kothi, District East Champaran 3. Shatrughan Sah, son of Shri Jagan Sah, resident of Village Jalalpur, P.S. Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur 4. Bishwanath Prasad, son of Shri Chunmun Sah, resident of Village Bara Chakia, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran 5. Nawal Kishore Sah, son of Shri Ganesh Sah, resident of Village Kuawan, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran 6. Prabha Devi, daughter of Shri Bhikhari Sah, resident of Village Hindu Chakia, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran 7. Ramji Prasad, son of Late Prayag Sah, resident of Village Bara Chakia, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran ……………….. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources (Development) Department, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Human Resources (Development) Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources (Development) Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2 4. B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, through the Vice Chancellor of the said University. 5. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 6. The Principal, Shivdeni Ram Ayodhya Prasad College, Bara Chakia, District- East Champaran ……………….Respondents….Respondents lst Set 7. Rajendra Kumar Singh, son of Late Ramprit Singh, resident of Village Bara Chakia, P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran 8. Dinesh Prasad, son of Shri Ramdeo Sah, resident of Village Bara Chakia,P.S. Chakia, District East Champaran ………………Petitioners.. Respondents IInd Set ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with M/s Kishore Kumar Thakur, Shashi Bhushan Kumar. Advocates For the University : - Mr A.B.Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Mr. A.Amanullah, SC 17 with Mr. M.K.Pathak, A.C. to SC. 17 --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ----- Navin Sinha & Dinesh Kumar Singh,JJ. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel for the University and the learned Counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. The appellant no. 7 in L.P.A. No. 442 of 2003 is stated to have been deceased during pendency of the appeal and the appeal has therefore become infructuous with regard to him. It is accordingly disposed off in so far as appellant no. 7 is concerned only. 3. The appellants are non-teaching Class III and IV staff of the Shiv Deni Ram Ayodhya Prasad College (S.R.A.P.College) Bara Chakia, District East Champaran. Their claim to be considered for regularisation/absorption in the services of the University has been rejected by the judgment under appeal. 4. In view of nature of the order to be passed this Court does not consider it necessary to take note of the facts except to the extent necessary. 5. The appellants claim to have been appointed by the erstwhile Governing Body of the S.R.A.P. College after a process of 3 selection and joined in or about July 1980.The College in question was under consideration for being declared a constituent College of the respondent University and which ultimately came to be so declared on 19.7.1980 with effect from 1.10.1980. 6. The judgment under appeal rejects their claim on the premise of their appointment being too close in point of time to the consideration being done for declaring the college as a constituent college, making their appointments suspect. 7. Counsel for the appellants and the University are not at issue that the question of appointments to be made within the staffing pattern has been noticed in Para 13 of the judgment but without any conclusive opinion or finding with regard to the appellants. It further transpires that the matter came to this Court in earlier writ applications and in pursuance of which a three men committee was also constituted by the University for the purpose. The State Government in the Department of Higher Education noticing the constitution of the three men committee by letter dated 1.8.2000 nonetheless proceeded to reject their cases in context of the staffing pattern by order dated 3.5.2001 observing that the report of the three men committee had not been received. 8. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the three men committee submitted its report and which has been forwarded on 19.4.2001 by the University to the Department of Higher Education. Though the judgment under appeal notices that the rejection order dated 3.5.2001 has been reiterated by the Department of Higher Education after scrutiny of the three men committee also, Counsel for both sides have fairly conceded that no such order is available on record and neither of them have brought it on record for consideration of the Court. 9. If the decision dated 3.5.2001 has been taken without considering the report of the three men committee dated 19.4.2001 it can safely be said that the former decision refuses due 4 consideration of relevant materials rendering the same arbitrary. If the rejection order dated 3.5.2001 has been reiterated by a separate written rejection after considering the three men committee report dated 19.4.2001 the remedy of the appellants lies in challenging such fresh decision in a freshly constituted writ application. We consider it necessary to so observe as it appears that no such orders or even date thereof were brought on record in the previous proceedings. 10. Learned Counsel for the University submits that if no final appropriate decision on the recommendation of the three men committee dated 19.4.2001 has been taken with regard to the appellants in contest of the staffing pattern the University shall proceed to do so in accordance with law. 11. In light of the aforesaid discussion and subject to the stipulations contained hereinabove let the respondents take a fresh decision with regard to the absorption of the appellants in context of the staffing pattern and in terms of the recommendations dated 19.4.2001 when as the record stands at present, the order dated 3.5.2001 shall not be an impediment in any manner. 12. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full and material facts with reference to all decisions and documents be passed within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this judgment. 13. Both the appeals stand disposed off. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.) Patna High Court The 6th May 2010 Snkumar/- (NAFR)