IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9179 of 1997 1. Sri Panchanand Srivastava, Son of Sri Janardan Prasad, Resident of Village Kurhani, P.S. Kurhani, District Muzaffarpur. 2. Sri Rajendra Choudhary, Son of Nagina Choudhary, Resident of Village Mahadeva Road, P.S. Siwan, District Siwan. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. Jai Prakash University through its Vice-Chancellor, Dakbangla Road, Saran, Chappra. 4. The Registrar, Jai Prakash University, Dakbangla Road, Saran, Chhapra. 5. The Principal, Vidya Bhawan Mahila Mahavidalaya, Siwan, Chhapra. --------- Respondents ----------- 9 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is for direction upon the Respondents to give sanction/approval of Non- Teaching post of Peon of Vidya Bhawan Mahila Mahavidalaya, Siwan as per the recommendation of the then Bihar University (The College was under the Bihar University earlier) contained in Memo No. 110192 dated- 11th September, 1991 as well as in terms of the ratio laid down by Full Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in L.P.A. No. 36 of 1994 (Braj Kishore Singh & Others V/s. The State of Bihar 2 and Others) reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 509. 2. That the petitioners further prays for direction upon the Respondents for payment of the salary of the petitioners, for which the petitioners are entitle since March, 1981, In view of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Sri Braj Kishore Singh’s case reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 509 as the petitioners are continuously functioning as Peon in he said College.” The respondent University had filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the in terms of the order of this Court in the case of Braj Kishore Singh (supra) and also subsequent orders, steps were taken by the respondents for re- examining the sanctioned posed as per Staffing Pattern and in this context, in paragraph nos. 7 to 11 & 13, the stand of the University is as follows:- “7. That pursuant to decisions of this Hon’ble Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3730/96 and its analogous cases the State authorities, in its higher Education Department, vide its letter No. 1383 dated 27.09.1993 created and sanctioned altogether 26 non-teaching post as 3 per the staffing pattern with effect from 1.03.1981 for Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Siwan wherein petitioners herein claim to be working. 8. That, out of 26 post aforesaid 2 post, one each of typist and lab bearer were sanctioned for limited period i.e. up to the date of the death/leaving the college by the incumbent of the post. 9. That in order to implement the court’s order/judgment contained in paragraph 25 aforesaid, the University, at its level, on making verification of the college records, prepared a consolidated claim statements and submitted the same to the State Government vide Memo No. 2535 dated 10.03.1993 with a request to release necessary funds. 10. That the State authority, in its Higher Education Department released necessary fund in terms of claim made vide letter dated 10.03.1993 and accordingly payment was made to the concerned employees. 11. That it is stated that in the statement sent to the State Government vide letter dated 10.03.1993, 26 persons have been shown working on different post and the name of the petitioners do not find place in the said list. 12. That it is stated and submitted 4 that petitioners herein were not petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 5151/95, 563/94, 3730/86 or 5647/90 and has for the first time approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the instant writ application. 13. That from the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove it shall be manifest and clear that the State Government has already created and sanctioned the requisite number of non-teaching post with effect from 1.03.1981 for Vidya Bhawan Mahila College, Siwan as admissible in terms of staffing pattern which post are filled up by the persons working from the earlier dates and further the list of working persons submitted to the State Government by the University does not contain the name of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the prayer made and relief sought for in the present writ application has got no merit and liable to be rejected by this Hon’ble Court.” From the aforementioned stand, it would be clear that the State Government has already created and sanctioned the requisite number of non-teaching post with effect from 1.3.1981 and against such sanctioned post, the name of the petitioners does not get accommodated on account of 26 others being already placed therein. 5 The claim of the counsel for the petitioner that there would be 33 sanctioned post as per the staffing patter would be a matter of speculation, inasmuch as, the number of admissibility of sanctioned post in terms of the Staffing Pattern has to be gone on the statistics to be provided by the University and if the University had provided such statistics on the basis of which Government had sanctioned 26 posts with effect from 1.3.1981, this Court cannot interfere in such decision of the Government unless it is held that they are contrary to the staffing pattern. As a matter of fact, the petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter affidavit having not even questioned, much less, supplied any statistics to show justifiability of 33 posts, the number of posts had to be created by the State Government as per the number of students in 1981, and that exercise was to be gone into by the University, which had recommended for creation and sanction of only 26 posts. Once the posts recommended by the University was 6 accepted by the Government by way of sanctioning 26 posts, this Court would not now go into the speculative argument of the counsel for the petitioners that there would be still availability of seven more posts i.e. 33 posts in all. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)