IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4013 of 2003 SURENDRA KUMAR RAY son of Sri Sita Ram Ray, Resident of village- Baghra Mohanpur, P.S. Patori, District- Samastipur At present residing at Azad Nagar, Mohanpur, District Samastipur. Versus 1.THE V.C.,L.N.MITHILA UNIVERSITY, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 2. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 3.The Principal, Baliram Bhagat College, Samastipur. 4.The Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 3 9.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the L.N.Mithila University. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “That this application is directed against the arbitrary action of Respondent authorities wherein despite the petitioner’s having contributed 10 of his valuable years in the services of the Respondent College, his pay has not been fixed and the service book remains unopened debarring the petitioner from even a penny for the labour he has put in the preceding years.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the Vice Chancellor of the University by his order dated 2.8.1988 had authorized the Principal of the Constituent College to engage unemployed Post Graduate persons having higher qualification of Ph.D degree etc. on the vacant post of Lecturer by making arrangement on an adhoc basis by fixing remuneration of Rs.35/- per lecturer subject to maximum Rs. 400/- and the petitioner was engaged by the Principal of the College on 12.8.1993 and his services were also continued till 12.12.1997, he would be entitled 2 to continuation of his service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the University has, however, in absence of counter affidavit has only explained that the petitioner could not have been appointed on a regular basis on the post of Lecturer in a Constituent College by the Principal of the College and therefore Annexure-2 has to be read merely as an adhoc arrangement for engaging temporary teachers which cannot confer any right to the petitioner for his becoming regular teacher of the College. He would further submit that the petitioner’s continuation either by opening service book or treating him as a regular employee for payment of salary would be of no consequence, inasmuch as the Intermediate Council which was at one point of time was some how also looking after the teaching of the Intermediate Education of the College is no longer in existence. In the opinion of this Court, a writ of mandamus could have been issued had the petitioner been appointed in terms of Section 57 of the Bihar State Universities Act which recognizes power of temporary appointment only for a period of six months and that too by the Vice Chancellor. Beyond the period of six months it is only on the recommendation of the Commission a person may be appointed as a lecturer in a Constituent College. Once this aspect becomes clear, the certificate given by the Principal, Incharge of the College with regard to continuation of the petitioner can at best only give him the benefit of payment of remuneration of Rs.25/- per lecturer. The petitioner, 3 however, has not made a prayer for payment of remuneration on contract basis and neither his prayer is for regularization of his service. It is however made clear that if the petitioner’s remuneration in the rate of 25/- per class has remained unpaid either on account of the University not disbursing such amount or the College not paying the same, such amount must be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let it be also made clear that any such payment for engagement as per class would however confer no right to the petitioner for regularization of his service. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)