IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14742 of 2005 1. SUBHASH CHANDRAN, SON OF SHRI RAM BIRAJ THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANDAULI, P.S. MADHWAPUR, DISTRICT MADHUBANI (BIHAR). 2. PRABHAKARAN, SON OF SHRI BRAHMDEO JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SINUAR GOPAL, P.O. LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. (BIHAR) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR). 5. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR) 6. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR (BIHAR.) 7. THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, PUSA ROAD, NEW DELHI. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Ms. Namrata Mishra, Advocate For R.A.U. :- Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. A. Amanullah, G.A. 9 in CWJC No. 1685/03 Mr. M.K. Pathak, A.C. to G.A. 9 ********* 10 6.12.2010 Petitioners are working as Workshop Superintendents in the College of Rajendra Agricultural University. They were appointed vide Annexure-1, by an advertisement issued in the year 1974. The qualifications of the Workshop Superintendent as mentioned in the advertisement is “(1) Second class Bachelor Degree in Mechanical or Production 2 Engineering from a recognized University or an equivalent qualification recognized by the State Govt. (2) Three years practical experience in a responsible capacity of workshops or production in the firm or an institution of repute. The petitioners first filed a writ claiming that they were entitled to U.G.C. scale prescribed for Workshop Superintendents. The writ application was dismissed. The second writ application was filed by the petitioners claiming that they were entitled to receive the salary of Workshop Superintendents as applicable to other Workshop Superintendents working in different Universities in the State of Bihar. Their writ application was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court is contained in Annexure-8. It would be relevant to quote the order: “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Res. No. 4 Rajendra Agricultural University states that petitioners who are working as Workshop Superintendent in 3 Agricultural Engineering Colleges would be granted pay-scales as prescribed by A.I.C.T.E. Rules which are being paid in other Engineering Colleges employees in the State of Bihar w.e.f. 1.11.2001. In view of the aforesaid statement learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this petition. The permission granted.” In this context, it would also be relevant to refer to the affidavit filed on behalf of the University before the Supreme Court which is contained in the reply of the petitioners to the counter affidavit of the respondents filed on 9.7.2008. In the affidavit it has been stated that the minimum requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor, which is the lowest post in the teaching cadre is, first or second class in M.Sc. whereas the qualification required for the post of Workshop Superintendent is merely B.E. or diploma with experience. Accordingly after the directions of the Supreme Court on the basis of the stand of the University, petitioners were granted pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 as prescribed by 4 the A.I.C.T.E. The occasion to come to this Court arose on account of an order issued by the Vice-chancellor of the University which has been challenged by the petitioners. The stand in Annexure-15 is that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed for the post of Workshop Superintendent under the A.I.C.T.E. Rules. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the University was that in fact A.I.C.T.E. rules do not apply to the petitioners. I find that the stand taken by the University contradicts each other in as much if the rules are not applicable to the petitioners, the question that they do not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the A.I.C.T.E. rules does not arise in this case. The petitioners’ stand is that the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications and as such they were duly appointed by the University. Such a stand on behalf of the University seems to be rather strange. Apart from which the University has already filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court, stating therein, 5 that the petitioners could get the scale as prescribed by A.I.C.T.E. The order indicates that since the scale has not been approved by the State Government, the petitioners would not be entitled to such scale. I do not see how the State Government cannot approve the scale which is admissible according to the rules. Such a stand on behalf of the University appears to be rather weak and shallow. Annexure-15 indicates that the order would be subject to the decision in RAUTA & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Agricultural University & Ors. The writ number indicated at Annexure- 15 as CWJC No. 1656 of 2003 which appears to be a mistake. The actual number of the writ application is CWJC No. 1685 of 2003. This writ application has been filed praying therein that the respondents should be refrained from invoking the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education in the University in so far as it relates to the pay scales of non teaching employees. Nobody has appeared to press this writ application. Even otherwise I do not understand how the teachers association 6 would be affected by the pay scale granted to non teaching staff in accordance with the rules of the A.I.C.T.E. or any other rule which prescribes grant of pay scales for non-teaching staff. Therefore, this observation in the order impugned is of no value. I, accordingly, quash Annexure-15 issued vide memo no. 421 dated 24.3.2003. This writ application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)