IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 120 of 2006 Chandra Shekhar Jha, son of late Ram Thakn Jha, present residing under care of Brahmdeo Singh Chautha Mathia near Darbhanga House of Patna University, P O – Patna University, P S – Pirbahore, District - Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 2 The Director, Higher Education, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 3 The Vice Chancellor, Patna University at and P O + District – Patna – 800 005 4 The Registrar, Patna University, Patna – 800 005 - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Shiv Kumar, Advocate For Patna University : Mr Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Narendra Kumar, AC to SC 22 *** 4 06.05.2011 The petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee in the Post Graduate Department of History in the Patna University Library, has filed this writ application for appropriate direction to the University authorities to consider him for appointment by promotion to Class-III post of Library Assistant. Petitioner has for more than a decade being working as Library Peon in the History Department of University Library. Counter affidavit has been filed and with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is no provision in the Patna University Act for promotion of Class-IV employee to Class- III employee but in the same very paragraph in the counter affidavit, it is stated that University has taken a decision to fill up some Class-III posts by promotion from Class-IV posts. From a reference to Annexure-A to 2 the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the decision has been to reserve 50% of Class-III post for qualified Class-IV employees to be filled up by promotion. Annexure-A is the advertisement pursuant to which petitioner had made application on or about 27.04.2005 for being considered for appointment by promotion to the post of Library Assistant. The qualification for the same, as stipulated in the advertisement itself, is Matriculation and training in Library Science. Similar is the qualification for Assistant/Sorter for which also petitioner seeks appointment by promotion. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the University is that petitioner lacked the requisite qualification, in other words, though he is a Matriculate, he had no training in Library Science. To the straight question put by this Court is to what is understood by training in Library Science, neither the counter affidavit gives any indication nor the counsel could produce any document to explain the same. As noted above, petitioner undisputedly has been a Library Peon for more than a decade in the University Library itself. In absence of any formal exposition of the expression training in Library Science for the post concerned, in my view, familiarity with Library and its maintenance is sufficient qualification. The matter does not end here. From the list of candidates who have been selected for the two posts aforesaid that is Library Assistant and Sorter/Assistant, the qualification being the same, two persons were selected. They were both much junior to the petitioner and that has been the principal grievance of the petitioner. A reference to the appointment notification, as contained in Annexure-3, would show that both these persons had at the time of selection not produced any certificate of 3 training in Library Science and were given six months’ time to produce the same. This also shows that University itself had insisted only on familiarity and not any formal course in that regard. It is not shown that any formal course for Class-IV standard employees is there in this regard. It is, thus, apparent that the stand of the University and the sole ground for considering petitioner that he did not have the academic qualification is not sustainable. The stand is only a justification or pretence of a justification to justify non-consideration and consequential non-selection. Having come to this point, the question is to what relief is the petitioner entitled as the petitioner has already superannuated during pendency of this writ petition. The selected persons also would be on verge of superannuation. In my view, equities would be well served if petitioner is considered for the said promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted and if there existed a vacancy, he would be deemed to be promoted as that would materially affect his retiral benefits. He cannot be deprived of those if he was otherwise entitled. This would, however, not be at the cost of dislodging any other employee. With this observation and direction, which should be complied within three months from today, the writ application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)