IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7515 of 2009 UDAY RAJ S/O LATE JANESHWAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND PO- LARI, PS- KURTHA, DISTT- AGWAL, PRESENTLY POSTED AS LIBRARIAN S.B.A.N. COLLEGE,DARHETA, LARI PO- LARI PS-KURTHA, DISTT- ARWAL----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT ,PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.U. BODH GAYA 6. THE REGISTRAR, M.U. BODH GAYA 7. THE FINANCE OFFIER, M.U. BODH GAYA 8. THE PRINCIPAL, S.B.A.N.COLLEGE, DARHETA, LARI PO- LARI PS-KURTHA, DISTT- ARWAL---------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 2.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By virtue of the decision contained in annexure-8 which is a letter dated 18.5.2009 addressed to the Principal of S.B.N. College Jehanabad the petitioner has been shown to be an Assistant Librarian and entitled to salary of Rs. 4000-6000. This communication has the effect of reducing the pay scale as well as the post which the petitioner is holding in the college in question. Submission of learned Senior counsel is that such a decision has been taken detrimental to the interest of petitioner without any opportunity of hearing or notice to him and contrary to the record and declaration made by Justice Agrawal Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Senior counsel draws attention of this Court to annexure-5 specially page 22 wherein the number of posts sanctioned as per the order dated 1st February, 1998 for Librarian has been indicated to be two and petitioner has been - 2 - shown at number one and one Sri Sachchidnand Sharma as number two. Submission is made that after declaration of the status of the petitioner with regard to the post which he is or was holding there is no occasion for the University now to muddy the water over and above the findings given by Agrawal Commission. Stand of the respondents specially the Magadh University is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of a clerk and he joined in that capacity way back in the year 1974. In 1976 the petitioner was transferred to the Library and it is shown that he is working as a Librarian though he was never substantially appointed on the post of Librarian but he at best can be treated as Assistant Librarian. It is also urged that even though Commission shows his name against the first part but power has been vested with the Vice Chancellor with regard Section 4 (14) of the University Act to take a decision on this issue. The stand of the University seems to be misleading, if not an effort to again reopen a dispute which came to be settled after a protracted hearing and a detailed report having been submitted and accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of what is known as Agrawal Commission report. If the petitioner was declared or shown to be a Librarian by the Agrawal Commission and this fact was never challenged or objected to then that fact cannot be otherwise now merely because the University shows the petitioner to be an Assistant Librarian and offering him - 3 - salary of an Assistant Librarian. The impugned order as contained in annexure-8 in so far as it relates to petitioner is quashed. Respondents are directed not to interfere with the service of the petitioner as a Librarian and to extend him the benefit of pay scale to which a Librarian is entitled to. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)