IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11405 of 1996 Manoj Kumar S/O Shri Sharda Charan Srivastava, Technical Supervisor( Previsouly Technical Assistant),Directorate of Research, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, District- Samastipur. ------Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The Rajendra Agricultural University through its Registrar having office at Pusa, District- Samastipur. 2. The Vice- Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, District- Samastipur. 3. Indian Council of Agricultural Research through its Secretary having office at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The State of Bihar through Agricultural Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna. ------Respondents. -------- For the petitioner: M/S. A. B. Ojha and Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocates. For the University: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate. --------- 14. 12.12.2008. The petitioner is claiming that he should be treated as a teacher of Rajendra Agricultural University(hereinafter referred to be as „the University‟), Pusa, District–Samastipur and thereafter be granted U.G.C. pay scale from the date on which Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Sri Sheo Nandan Singh were granted U.G.C. scale considering them to be teachers of the said University. Sri Sharma and Sri Singh were appointed by letter dated 18th December,1982 on the post of Senior Research Assistant/Technical Assistant in the University. The petitioner Manoj Kumar was appointed by Annexure-1 dated 4th April 1985 on the post of Technical Assistant/ Computer Assistant under N.A.R.P., I. C. A. R. Scheme. The petitioner claims that the appointments of Sri Sharma - 2 - and Sri Singh alongwith one Sri Jawahar Jha were made in the year 1982 and when Sri Jha did not join the said post, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1985 and therefore, claims that he is similarly situated to Sri Sharma and Sri Singh. Apart from that, the petitioner also claims that equivalence on the ground that the pay-scale of Sri Sharma and Sri Singh are the same as the pay-scale of the petitioner. This matter was agitated by the petitioner before the University and the University in a meeting held on 8.2.1996(Annexure-20) to the petitioner‟s rejoinder to the counter affidavit took the following decision: “ However, the Committee feels that since Sri S. N. Singh fromwhere the matter started, was given this benefit after getting the approval of the Board of Management and Shri R. P. Sharma was given this benefit because he is senior to Sri S. N. Singh, it would, therefore, be prudent that the matter of the remaining seven could be put up in the next meeting of the Board of Management for consideration and approval because it is a question of upgradation of status and also allowing higher pay scale which they were not drawing earlier.” Despite the decision being taken sometime in 1986, the University has not come up with the statements or final decision with regard to the status of the petitioner Manoj Kumar. In the facts stated aforesaid two questions arise. The First question which is of importance and would throw light in deciding the - 3 - petitioner‟s entitlement is whether the petitioner‟s case could be treated to be equivalent to the case of Sri R. P. Sharma and Sri S. N. Singh. Secondly, the University has to decide whether the petitioner should be treated as a teacher in terms of norms laid down under Section 2 of the University Statute. For this purpose, the University may refer to the judgment in the case of Kamla Kant Roy and others Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1985 P.L.J.R., 77 and the judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary & others Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University and others reported in 2000(2) P. L .J. R., 209, specifically paragraph no.7 of the said judgment where the court has distinguished between the teaching post and non-teaching post. If the answer to the question aforesaid is in affirmative then it would be necessarily mean that the petitioner would be upgraded to the post of a teacher, and he would then be entitled for the U. G. C. scale. The University is directed to take a decision if it has already not done so, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,j)