IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17241 of 2008 Chakradhar Prasad, Son of Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Badaki Hathiya, P.S. Kharagpur, District Munger…………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, through its Registrar. 4. The Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur. 5. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University Bhagalpur 6. The Principal, J.R.S. College, Jamalpur, Munger…………………………………………………….…………………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey, Advocate. For the University: Mr. A.K. Keshri, Advocate 2 01.08.2011 Learned counsel for the University submits that after series of litigations in this Court and under orders of the Chancellor, list of 365 Class III and Class IV employees working in the University on daily wages was prepared by the University for their regularisation against vacant sanctioned post in the University and was approved by the State Government vide Letter No.46/96-425 dated 3.4.2007 and they have been regularized by the University consequent upon approval by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner who is of 2 B.C. category and was much senior to many of the incumbents of the category who have been regularized on the basis of such approval by the State Government, for no valid and cogent reasons, case of the petitioner has been ignored for inclusion of his name in the list of Class III and Class IV employees of B.C. category working in the University sent to the State Government for its approval. He submits that as per the Chancellor’s order dated 03.12.2005 (Annexure-1) the University was required to prepare list strictly as per seniority and reservation roster, which the University has not done and has not included the name of the petitioner in the category as per his seniority. This is a question of fact which requires to be examined by the University authorities and to take corrective measures if petitioner’s name was left out by mistake. Therefore, it will be advisable for the petitioner to file a representation before the Vice chancellor of the University pointing out to him the history of his 3 appointment and service under the University, in whatever capacity it may be, and claiming that the persons appointed along with him or subsequent to him have been regularized on the basis of approval of the State Government overlooking his claims. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the respondent Vice Chancellor shall examine the records in respect of the services of the petitioner vis-a-vis of those who claim to be junior to him in service. If after enquiry, respondent Vice Chancellor finds that the claims of the petitioner are correct and his case was ignored or overlooked by the University for no cogent reasons, he shall pass orders and recommend his name to the State Government, in terms of the Chancellor orders, for approval, within three months of filing of the representation and after obtaining approval of the State Government, he shall pass orders for regularisation of the petitioner against next available sanctioned vacant posts. For the purpose of enquiry, if necessary, respondent Vice Chancellor may 4 give personal hearing to the petitioner also. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)